Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (BERNERAY HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered, to he read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Land Rover

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for the possibility of securing the early privatisation of Land Rover of its recent achievement of a £50 million contract to supply the Australian Army with military vehicles.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): We are delighted that Land Rover has won this contract. Plans for the company's future remain as outlined in my right hon. Friend's statement of 24 April.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he be so kind as to take this opportunity to congratulate Land Rover on the excellent order that it has secured? Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. Graham Day, and after a period of consolidation—which might take a little time—there are prospects for privatisation by offer to British shareholders?

Mr. Morrison: I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's message of congratulation to Land Rover and also convey to Mr. Graham Day my hon. Friend's feelings about the future of the Rover group under his leadership. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about future prospects. The present position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend earlier this year.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Minister tell us the present position on Leyland Bus?

Mr. Morrison: The straight answer to that is no, I cannot. The matter is being considered by the Rover group and we have yet to receive a recommendation.

Mr. Greenway: If my hon. Friend wishes to look for success in private industry and the value that that could have for BL, he has only to look at the rowing boats on

the Thames taking part in the parliamentary regatta today. Is he aware that although the ITN boat crashed hard into a bridge, it did not split and there was no damage to boat or occupants? The Knights of the Shires boat almost—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very ingenious, but the question relates to British Leyland.

Mr. Greenway: On the principle of privatization—

Mr. Speaker: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a good try.

Mr. John Evans: Would it not be more intelligent to allow BL to get on with its work, to stop all this talk about privatisation and to allow the company to concentrate on being a very good British company doing wonders for the British work force and for British industry?

Mr. Morrison: Of course, the hon. Gentleman would take that point of view. He is aware that since Jaguar returned to the private sector it has done outstandingly well.

Mr. Marlow: While considering how best to secure investment in the British motor car industry, will my hon. Friend tell the House how convinced he is that General Motors will seek to invest money in the United Kingdom rather than in the rest of Europe?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, General Motors has a long history, going back 50 years, of significant investment in this country, and we are very grateful for that. I hope that it will continue to make its European investment based in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith: Following the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne), will he say when a decision will be made about the future of Leyland Bus? If on an evaluation of the bids it is clear that it is in the public interest that Leyland Bus stays in the public sector, will the Minister confirm that the Government will keep that option open as they did in the case of Land Rover?

Mr. Morrison: I regret that I am unable to say precisely when the decisions will be taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that there are complicated matters to be considered, and they should be considered properly. The form is that the board of the Rover group makes a recommendation to the Department and the Department considers the recommendation. I hope that the delay will he put to an end as soon as possible. I appreciate that that delay has had a debilitating effect on all those involved. The straightforward answer to the second point is yes. We shall look at the question in the context in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it.

Retail Furniture Industry

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the operation of the voluntary code of practice of the retail furniture industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): The furniture industry code is one of some 20 codes of practice in various sectors which are endorsed by the Director General of Fair Trading for the benefit of consumers. The Office of Fair


Trading is discussing with the National Association of Retail Furnishers, the trade association principally concerned, certain aspects of the code with a view to making it more effective.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the scheme, which has been of so much benefit to consumers, is in danger of having to be wound up because the cost has had to be borne entirely by the National Association of Retail Furnishers? Will my hon. and learned Friend use his charm and powers of persuasion to encourage the furniture and bedding manufacturers to honour their financial obligations to support the scheme, as was envisaged when it was originally set up?

Mr. Howard: The consumer also contributes to the cost of the scheme. I understand the concern that gives rise to my hon. Friend's question. I shall invite the Director General to consult the trade associations concerned to see whether an acceptable solution can be achieved.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Linked with the code of practice, is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the flammability test on materials used in the retail trade?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that recently I made an announcement about the flammability test, which I am satisfied will lead to substantially enhanced standards regarding the flammability of furniture.

Mr. Alan Williams: Bearing in mind that the greatest public concern is the safety issue and the risk of fire, and since that is essentially an element within the control of the manufacturers, will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear to the manufacturers, when he meets the trade associations, that all hon. Members expect them to make a proper contribution to the costs of the scheme?

Mr. Howard: As I said earlier, that is a matter for the Director General. I shall draw the attention of the Director General to the remarks that have been made.

New Businesses (Cleveland)

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many, and at what total value, grants have been made to existing and new businesses in Cleveland in each of the past 12 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): Over £470 million in regional assistance grants has been paid by this Department to businesses in Cleveland in the past 12 years. I have arranged for the figures for each scheme of assistance for each year to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It seems to show that all Governments have put money into Cleveland, but Cleveland continues to have the highest unemployment. Does that not reflect on the Socialist subculture in that region, which denies so much to the entrepreneur who would go there and set up businesses?

Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vigorous defence of the interests of Langbaurgh and the residents of Cleveland. That may have something to do with the fact that six Ministers, including two Secretaries of State, will have visited the region between 14 July and 5 August. Having made 15 visits myself over the past 48

hours to different organisations in the region, I can say that there is a clearer appreciation among all parties there that the enterprise spirit will be the basis for future jobs and that, in conjuction with the public sector, private enterprise can flourish.

Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on visiting Cleveland at long last this week, despite the fact that it has taken since before Christmas for him to do so. What were his impressions on industrial development there as a result of the knowledge he gained from his visit to the polytechnic's design department?

Mr. Butcher: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some controversy surrounds that department. Having visited it yesterday, I must say that I was impressed by the capability of the staff and students and by the determination of that department, in conjunction with the business studies section, to mount an exercise on behalf of local companies to ascertain whether they can source new products into the region. That seems to be at the heart of what we are all trying to achieve for Middlesbrough and for the Cleveland area generally. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's representations on another matter. 1 have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)—about it.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the call by a former Member for Cleveland—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)— for a regional development agency to be set up in the north of England? Is he aware of the response to early-day motion 1030 in my name calling for such a regional development agency for the north-west?

Mr. Butcher: As my hon. Friend will know, whether we are talking of the north-west or of the north-east, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider in terms of lead policy decisions at the Department of the Environment. We shall have to await the outcome of his considerations. For the time being, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be wise to comment on a number of conjectural points made in recent days.

Mr. Alan Williams: Have any jobs or job opportunities arisen from this belated spate of visits by Ministers? Did any of those Ministers during their visits to the north reveal that the Government are relenting and are willing to return to the north the £180 million that they will steal from its regional funding over the next five-year period?

Mr. Butcher: That was a travesty of the true position. I repeat: to put £470 million into one economic sub-region the size of Cleveland is a very dramatic spend. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more responsible in supporting the efforts of any party in any sector of the economy to ascertain how to achieve a better job creation rate for the money spent and to ascertain how that links with what the private sector would wish to do in partnership with public sector expenditure, for example on the rehabilitation of land. A number of the issues which we discussed, not just as part of an alleged "recent" attention to this area, were specifically targeted on the creation of jobs from three sources—inward investment, the birth of new businesses and the expansion of jobs among existing employers.

Following are the figures:

Payments of Regional Assistance in Cleveland: 1974–75 to 1985–86


£' million



Regional Development Grants (a)
Regional Selective Assistance
Business Improvement Services (b)
Totals


1974–75
N/A
0·26
—
—


1975–76
N/A
0·76
—
—


1976–77
81·3
2·04
—
83·3


1977–78
66·3
1·32
—
67·6


1978–79
68·9
1·94
—
70·8


1979–80
61·6
3·13
—
64·7


1980–81
43·7
1·44
—
45·1


1981–82
43·7
1·48
—
45·2


1982–83
22·8
1·25
—
24·1


1983–84
22·6
2·17
—
24·8


1984–85
22·5
4·82
0·003
27·3


1985–86
9·5
5·62
0·049
15·2


Total
442·9
26·23
0·052
469·2

Notes:

(a) Figures not available for years prior to 1976–77. For the remaining years the sums noted are the totals of payments of £25,000 or more. Payments below £25,000 are not recorded below the level of region. The years 1984–85 and 1985–86 include all payments made under new RDG.

(b) Business Improvement Services Scheme Grants were introduced in 1984–85.

Westland Helicopters

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, pursuant to the answer of 18 June, Official Report, column 1020, he will make a statement on the seminar chaired by the Minister for Information Technology on the morning of 24 January.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): The seminar to which my hon. Friend referred was one Iola series involving the research and development directors of technology-based companies. It was attended also by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and by representatives of financial institutions and of the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that 24 January was the morning when his predecessor consulted Sir Brian Hayes and other distinguished civil servants about Westland? What has happened to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? What would Rab Butler, whose parliamentary private secretary the right hon. Gentleman was, have said about politicians who, when they get into a jam, start blaming civil servants for what they themselves have set in motion, authorising inquiries into so-called leaks knowing full well where the responsibility and initiative for the problem rested in the first place?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to comment on what he alleges in his question, which relates to a seminar chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. It has nothing to do with the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to Rab Butler, I assure him that Rab Butler always told me to answer the question on the Order Paper and not some fictitious one that came up later.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a good answer.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Butcher: The European Commission is conducting the negotiations on renewal of the MFA on behalf of the Community in accordance with the mandate approved by the Council of Ministers on 11 March. I am confident that a protocol of extension of the MFA will be negotiated by the end of July, when the present arrangement expires. In parallel, the Community has reached provisional agreement with a number of supplier countries on the renewal of bilateral agreements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is keeping in close touch with the industry and other interested parties as the negotiations progress.

Mr. Lamond: Has the Minister been receiving the same sorts of letters as I have from concerned employers, who point out that the end of July is fast approaching, that there are well substantiated rumours that Britain continues to weaken our position with regard to the MFA, and that there is a threat to the fragile recovery of the textile industry and to the investment that has been going on and, as a consequence, to many hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in the industry? If there is no truth in those rumours, will the Minister make that plain, and, if there is, will he do something about it before the end of July?

Mr. Butcher: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make it very plain to the hon. Gentleman that there is no weakening of our position. The current position on the mandate is the position that we wish to see delivered as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and his officials, particularly the officials where daily contact is concerned, keep in constant touch with the position in the industry,


particularly when we are monitoring things such as the sensitive products, where there is the greatest or changing threat. Therefore, I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, on almost a day-to-day basis, we are alive to the interests of our employers. Even allowing for the fact that, there is some limited further liberalisation of trading generally in those products, we feel that we have managed to produce a situation that recognises all the various interests.

Mr. Madden: Despite the fawning subservience of the Prime Minister to President Reagan and all things American—perhaps, indeed, because of it—is not the prospect that as America will have a much tougher regime against textile imports, British textile firms will face increased competition from imports diverted from America? What contingency plans do the Government have to deal with that challenge, or will the Government sit back as they have done over the past six years and see 500 textile workers' jobs a week disappear? What will the Government do really to help an industry that has done a great deal to help this country's economy?

Mr. Butcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not serve British interests to air publicly our evaluation of the efficacy or otherwise, or the strengths and weaknesses, of the Americans' recently negotiated position in bilaterals. With regard to the Americn situation, if changing circumstances permit a reappraisal of the way in which we pursue our bilaterals under the general protocol, that is something that we shall have to bear in mind. My understanding is that recent American bilateral agreements have been complex. It has been difficult to generalise about their effects, but, taken overall, they should not, in our view, cause us to reconsider our position at this stage.

Mr. Bowen Wells: During the renegotiation of this seriously protectionist measure, which is against Government policy as I understand it, has my hon. Friend been able to make any progress in phasing out the MFA over the next three years, so that our industry may know that it is coming to an end and be able to make itself more efficient, in order to compete and expand in the real world rather than the protectionist world?

Mr. Butcher: There is no doubt that three or four years ago the British textile industry had a very hard pounding, but there is equally no doubt that it has decided to come out fighting. The situation is not as gloomy as some Opposition Members would have us believe. With regard to the overall question of protection, we have said that there must be a continuation of the MFA, but under new terms. We have particularly said that, in the case of countries that indulge in one-way trading practices, for example, it would not be wise for us unilaterally to disarm. I cannot go along completely with my hon. Friend in the purist approach. I understand the philosophical basis of his argument, and I take his point.

Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the trade was horrified to learn that the alliance wished to dismantle the MFA altogether? Is he aware that any such action would cost thousands of jobs in Leicester?

Mr. Butcher: I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, curtailed the use of a waterborne metaphor by an hon. Member earlier, but I can only say that in my view the

alliance is well and truly in the drink on this. No doubt in the north-west in particular a number of local and general election campaigns will be dominated by the thoughts of some alliance spokesmen in the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Despite the talk of protectionism, is the Minister aware that the MFA has been virtually the only protection for our textile industry in recent years and that the entire industry throughout the United Kingdom looks to the Government for ultimate support in preserving the arrangement so that the industry can fulfil its potential in terms of export orders.

Mr. Butcher: I believe that the textile industry is now a highly professional, well-managed industry and that the skills of the work force are being properly used. If current attitudes continue, I see no reason why those companies that have not done so should not begin to increase their market share. The MFA is not a crude form of protectionism. It must also recognise the interests of consumers who, it could be argued, in some sectors have been paying higher prices than necessary for certain textile goods. That is why, as I have said, MFA policy is a matter of balancing interests. We believe that we have got the balance about right.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister will no doubt have received many representations and requests from the clothing industry for a strong multi-fibre arrangement. Will he ignore the Liberal call for a weak or non-existent MFA? Will he also tell the Liberals how many jobs would be lost in the clothing industry if the arrangement were abandoned? In the negotiations, will he take account of the recent increase in clothing imports?

Mr. Butcher: I take the hon. Gentleman's latter point on board. He is correct to point out that the industry is still a huge employer, with hundreds of thousands of employees. In my view, it is extremely dangerous to tinker with the future of those people, but it is for the alliance to decide whether it wishes to withdraw the policy that it has proposed.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware of the report by City Analysts de Zoete and Bevan? It states:
There seems to be no evidence therefore that MFA distorts, helps or hinders the progress of UK clothing imports … If the reason for MFA is protection it seems to us to be doing a pretty poor job and is probably irrelevant".
Does the Minister not agree with that analysis?

Mr. Butcher: This is clearly a serious development and the public have a right to know what the sinister de Zoete and Bevan faction is doing within the Liberal party.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the MFA is a considerable European success as a defensive mechanism against unfair competition and that there could be more avenues for co-operation to defend the European market against unfair competition, including Japanese motor cars?

Mr. Butcher: One of the themes of the MFA and the Community stance to it is that we should be more helpful to countries which are free and fair traders and less helpful to one-way traders. Similarly, we should try to skew whatever room to manoeuvre he have in liberalisation towards the poorer countries. I believe that that is a correctly balanced approach.

Mr. Gould: As these crucial negotiations from our point of view are entirely in EEC hands, what assurances can the


Government give the House and the industry that there will be no further weakening in the EEC negotiating mandate, which already falls far short of what is required to protect jobs in this vita] British industry? Will the hon. Gentleman repudiate clearly and directly not only the siren voices of the Liberals but those of Conservative Back Benchers, and make it clear that he is ready to take further steps to ensure that the negotiating mandate is not further weakened?

Mr. Butcher: I said earlier that the British position is four square behind the current structure of the mandate, and we see no reason to amend that from now on. That is the best signal that the House can send to the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

Discriminatory Discounts

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the subject of discriminatory discounts.

Mr. Howard: Since I January 1986 my right hon. Friend has received four representations on the subject of discriminatory discounts.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister accept that small businesses are not impressed by the lack of Government action or by the Binder Hamlyn report? If the Minister is not prepared to take legislative action to try to protect small businesses against discriminatory discounts, will he at least consider introducing a code of practice by which large businesses should operate when dealing with small businesses in this sector?

Mr. Howard: Both the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in 1981 and the Office of Fair Trading report in 1985 came to the conclusion that the benefit of these discounts was passed on to the consumer. Both the House and the housewives of Newcastle-under-Lyme will note that the contribution of the Liberal party on this issue is to press for measures that will lead to higher prices of goods in the shops.

Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one aspect of discriminatory discounts is the tax structure operated by the Japanese, which gives preference to American whisky over the superior Scottish product? Will he do all that he can to convey to his Japanese counterparts the real and increasing concern in the House about that blatant discrimination, and not shrink from taking any further robust steps that may be necessary in response?

Mr. Howard: I raised this matter when I was in Japan a few months ago, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has raised it strongly with the Japanese.

Mr. Hardy: Are not the Minister, his colleagues, his Department and the Office of Fair Trading well aware both of the substantial scale and the inherently unfair nature of the discounts that apply in the retail trade? Has this not been the principal reason for the rapid change in that trade, and is it not the case that, although a substantial number of jobs may appear to be created when a supermarket is established, there are no net gains, as many small businesses go out of business or dramatically contract?

Mr. Howard: No, this is by no means the only factor responsible for these changes. A number of other factors

are at work. The Government must have regard to the interests of the consumer, and as long as the consumer benefits, as these reports have found, from lower prices as a result of the discounts being passed on, any Government would have to pause and think long and hard before taking any measure that would work to the detriment of the consumer.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is not the question from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) yet another example of the Liberals trying to have it both ways? Does he not spend his time telling the House that Aberdeen is the most expensive city in Scotland and that prices there arc intolerable, while at the same time asking the Government to take measures that will result in higher prices for housewives in Aberdeen?

Mr. Howard: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. Every hon. Member is aware of the extent to which the Liberal party tries to face both ways on every conceivable issue in every constituency.

British Leyland

Mr. Park: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what current talks are being held regarding the future of BL.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The chairman of the Rover group has stated publicly that he is exploring the possibilities for collaborative and other arrangements with other manufacturers.

Mr. Park: Are the Government involved in these talks, or likely to be so? If they are involved, what is the likely agenda?

Mr. Morrison: In general terms, the answer is that the Government are not involved in the talks except. as I indicated in reply to an earlier question, in relation to the sale of Leyland Bus, which will be coming up shortly, when obviously the Government will be involved with the Rover group and its recommendations.

Mr. Warren: Is it not a fact that we now have in the Rover range a super car of world class and that all hon. Members on both sides of the House should back it, as I am sure we will do? Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has recommended many times that BL, or Rover, or whatever its name is, is an entity of British enterprise that we must all support?

Mr. Morrison: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said about the new Rover 800. It is a maginificent car and certainly a very nice car to travel in as a passenger. As to his remarks on the Select Committee's recommendation about the Rover group, the members of the Select Committee and I discussed the matter at length three weeks ago when I appeared before the Committee. We have varying points of view but I thought that it was an interesting and important discussion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister reject the proposition that Department of Trade and Industry officials are manoeuvring the bids for Leyland Bus in favour of Lairds? May I have an assurance that Department officials are not being pressed unduly by the chief executive of the Laird group?

Mr. Morrison: In answer to the second question, the hon. Gentleman can have that assurance. As to his first question, I hope that he has sufficient respect for my right hon. Friend and me to know that we make up our own minds.

Mr. Marlow: With regard to talks with the motor industry, can my hon. Friend say when he or a member of his Department last had talks with General Motors, and what those talks were about?

Mr. Morrison: As I have stated to the House, I met Mr. Stempel of General Motors some months ago. Since then, neither my right hon. Friend nor I have met General Motors.

Mr. Hoyle: In regard to Leyland Bus, can the Minister tell us whether the Leyland board has reached a decision and whether he or the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House before the recess?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier when I was responding to similar questions. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman to tell him that I said that we had received no recommendation from the Rover group about the sale of Leyland Bus. I and my right hon. Friend have always said that we will keep the House informed about relevant developments.

Mr. Wareing: As the Government often allege that they believe in trade union rights and workers being able to make an input into their industry, and as there was a meeting recently of the work force at which it was overwhelmingly against any idea of privatisation and in particular the sale of Leyland Bus, what credence can be given to the Government's oft-spoken words in favour of allowing workers to have their rights? What rights are the workers in British Leyland to have?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that I have met delegations from Leyland Bus and that I have visited factories in Lancashire and in Cumbria. The very points that the hon. Gentleman made have been put to me fairly and distinctly. Of course we listened to those points but we are in the business of selling the company if the right bid at the right price arises.

Mr. Roy Hughes: May I remind the Minister yet again of the wise words of Lord Stockton about selling off the family silver? Has the Minister made any assessment of the financial implications for the whole of the BL organisation because of the uncertainty about its future? Would it not be wise for the Government at this stage to decide to fight the next general election on their own record rather than attempting to buy the result by the sale of public assets and massive tax cuts stemming from those sales?

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt at all that the next general election, so far as the Government are concerned, will be fought and won on the Government's record, part of which is a very successful privatisation policy.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: In the course of such talks as there may be, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the best interests and the best future for the individual subsidiaries of the Rover group may be very different and may also lie over distinct time scales?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, of course I shall bear that in mind, and it is something that we shall always have at the front

as opposed to at the back of our mind when we come to take the relevant decisions after recommendations have been received from the board.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister appreciate the deep worry and concern of the workers in Leyland Bus who have seen the orders decimated by the Government's transport policy and who now face the prospect, if the Laird group takes over, of a very small bus producer taking over Britain's largest bus producer? Does it make any sense to encourage the Laird group simply to acquire a market share? Is not the sensible thing to do to keep Leyland bus in the public sector and support it strongly, in readiness for the upturn in bus sales that will come in Britain and throughout the world?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making, very forcefully, the very points that the shop stewards made to me when I visited Leyland. I am aware, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, that there is over-capacity in the bus market. I am also aware—and I think that the shop stewards agreed with me when we discussed it—that the potential in two, three or four years' time is there, because of the changing nature of the bus fleets.

EUREKA

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects involving United Kingdom companies have now been approved under the EUREKA initiative.

Mr. Butcher: A total of 33 projects involving British firms have now been approved under the EUREKA initiative. Twenty-eight of these were among the 62 announced at the third EUREKA ministerial conference held in London on 30 June. The remaining five are projects announced at the second ministerial conference in Hanover on 6 November 1985.

Mr. Richard Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. It appears that the initiative to put a commercial face on research is working. First, what is the value of these projects to British companies? Secondly, what steps are being taken by my hon. Friend or by his Department to make sure that projects which would have gone ahead anyway are not being funded through the EUREKA scheme?

Mr. Butcher: The total value of the projects that were announced on 30 June was £1,400 million. The value of those projects which involve the United Kingdom is over £730 million. Many of the projects are in the definition phase. The exact British share is difficult to assess at present, but an average of 25 per cent. is likely. As for my hon. Friend's question about whether these projects would have been supported anyway, he will be aware that a significant number of them require no public sector funding. They are levered forward because the companies are attracted by the market-opening opportunities, or the collaborative venture opportunities, or the exchange of information opportunities, but, where companies approach the Government for support, the additionality criteria will, of course, meet my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister please explain that the Department is now committed to meeting the required levels of Government support for industry under


ESPRIT and EUREKA, and that he is committed to maintaining national programmes at a very full level to enable us to participate in those programmes? At the same time, the support for innovation budget had been reduced. Flow much money is foreseen as being available for Government support for EUREKA, and where will it come from?

Mr. Butcher: The prime objective of EUREKA is not to lever forward public sector-funded initiatives. They are market-driven initiatives. The hon. Gentleman asks how much money will be made available. It is precisely because our support for innovation programme is demand-led on a case-by-case basis against viable projects that I cannot give him an answer to his question.

Estate Agents Act 1979

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of the consumer protection provisions in the Estate Agents Act 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I have received no such representations. The Act provides important safeguards for the consumer, but I shall continue to keep a close watch on the effectiveness of the Act and the Director General of Fair Trading will continue to exercise his powers to ban or warn estate agents where he considers this appropriate.

Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are some estage agents who are still practising after they have been convicted of offences of dishonesty and are subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment? Will he consider introducing legislation to place a duty on a court to report any such conviction to the Director General of Fair Trading, in order to give greater protection to the public against these tricksters?

Mr. Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for drawing this matter to my attention. The Act provides for a court to bring relevant convictions to the attention of the Director General at its discretion, but I shall certainly want to consider whether there is a case for amending the Act so as to place the courts under a statutory duty to inform the Director General of these matters.

Steel Industry

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of the steel industry.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I welcome the profits recently announced by the British Steel Corporation, together with signs of growing profitability in the private sector. The industry still faces major challenges, but the progress made in recent years is most encouraging.

Mr. Flannery: Can we assume that no closures are likely in the steel industry in the near future and that any major closures are simply not on the stocks at all?

Mr. Morrison: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate the British Steel Corporation on its outstanding success. The corporation will have to continue to run a competitive industry. How that arises will be a

matter for the corporation, but its success to date has been outstanding. Jobs within the British Steel Corporation today are far more secure than they were six years ago.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance of the British Steel Corporation has been remarkable? The £76 million profit which has just been announced is the first bottom line profit since 1974–75. Output is now at 14 million tonnes, which is a significant increase. That is the first increase in output for four years. United Kingdom steel consumption has risen by 2 per cent., British Steel Corporation's exports have risen by 4 per cent. and the overall productivity of the corporation is now such that 1 tonne of liquid steel is produced with 6·3 man-hours as opposed to seven man-hours last year. When the Labour party was in office, the figure was 14 man hours. With the ending of state steel aids, is not the position of the British Steel Corporation the strongest that it has ever been in the lifetime of the Government?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I only wish that the Opposition could bring themselves to congratulate the management and unions in the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. James Hamilton: The Minister will no doubt be aware that no later than yesterday 310 men were made redundant at the Clydesdale Tubeworks in my constituency, and there could be further redundancies in those works. There is 22 per cent. unemployment in that area. Does the Minister agree that if the Government had used their muscle with the British Steel Corporation in relation to the extraction of gas these jobs could have been saved, as could many other jobs that have been lost? Will the Minister do something about this before there is a catastrophe?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the corporation took what was an unpleasant decision only after the most careful consideration. I also assure him, in relation to job security in the corporation and n the industry as a whole, that the industry and the corporation must be run on the most competitive basis, or orders, and more jobs, will be lost.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent results that have just been announced are, we hope, the product of the difficult process of renationalisation following the overmanning and overproduction in the industry? Will he tell us what he thinks is happening in the Community, where it is fair to say that our European partners have been somewhat laggardly in following our example?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that my hon. Friend is being entirely fair, as much rationalisation has been carried out throughout the European steel industry. As he is aware, further negotiation and discussion will take place in the autumn about aids and quotas. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep a close eye on that ball.

Mr. Crowther: Following the ending of state aids to steel throughout the European Community, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the British steel industry, in the public and private sectors, does not continue in its present disadvantageous position, because of the indirect subsidies to steel in other European countries?

Mr. Morrison: As I said a moment ago, I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. All aid should be


transparent and all steel-making capacity should be on an equal footing. I shall be doing everything that I can within the Council of Ministers to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister understand that his talk about security of employment in the steel industry will have a hollow ring for the 310 workers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) referred, a substantial number of whom live in my constituency? The hon. Gentleman will recollect that it is only a matter of months since an even larger number of redundancies were announced in the context of a survival plan for Scottish Steel and Tubes division. Is it not now painfully clear that the failure to acquire orders in the North sea oil and gas fields arises to a large extent from the Government's decision not to proceed with the gas gathering pipeline system several years ago? If that were in place there would now he orders for our steel industry.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about his constituents and those of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton). The decision was not pleasant to make, but, as I have said, it was made after the most careful consideration. It is important to realise, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, that unless the corporation is run efficiently it will lose more orders and, therefore, more jobs.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that if an oil price of under $9 a barrel is sustained that will have serious implications for further development of the North sea and for steel orders, and that the threatened loss of jobs will be about 10,000 in Scotland, roughly equivalent to what a gas gathering system might have provided? If the Minister is not prepared to come forward with an initiative in that area—we have already lost the Sleipner contract — will he recognise that his Department and the Department of Energy must, as a matter of urgency, find some way of sustaining development projects in the North sea?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is apparently arguing for a cartel of oil prices, which may be rather more difficult to achieve than he thinks. The most important thing for steel is that we should have the most efficient company in the shape of BSC, which we have, and that will enable us to get markets, which will ensure jobs.

Manufacturing Industry (Investment Levels)

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the National Economic Development Council to discuss levels of investment in manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I propose to attend the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 23 September. At this and subsequent meetings I expect matters relevant to improving the United Kingdom's industrial performance to he discussed.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that job prospects in mining communities such as my own, which have been devastated by the savage pit closure programme, are now reaching crisis point? Is he further aware that there is an urgent need for further investment to supplement the investment of British Coal (Enterprise) Ltd. in those areas?

What will he do about that, or is it simply the case that where there are few Conservative votes there will be no investment?

Mr. Channon: No, I do not accept that. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to his point about British Coal (Enterprise) Ltd., which has done a good job. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the levels of investment in manufacturing industry, I am sure he will be pleased to know that manufacturing investment is up 6 per cent. and that non-oil industrial investment has risen to a record level.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that the policies being pursued by the Government have been nothing short of a disaster for industry and jobs? Is he aware that the planning officer of Liverpool has recently reported that by the end of the century, at the present rate of deindustrialisation and loss of jobs, not one person will be employed in that city? How will that fit on his agenda, and what remedies will he support at the NEDC meeting?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospects for the future, nor do I accept what he says about the past few years. Britain now has stable growth, low inflation, high manufacturing output, high productivity, high manufacturing investment and high manufacturing exports. [HON. MEMBERS: "High employment."]

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that numerous countries have sent advisers to the United Kingdom to seek advice about how we have harnessed private investment through the privatisation programme? Will he remind the NEDC that the policy of renationalisation, threatened by the Labour party if it should get into power, whether it is called social ownership or not, will reduce the amount of private investment in industry, particularly in those industries that have been privatised?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party's policy of state theft, which it calls by some other name, will indeed have that effect. I shall take what opportunities I can in the NEDC, and possibly elsewhere, to make that point.

Mr. Williams: When the Secretary of State boasts about his minute 6 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment, will he confirm that, even with that 6 per cent. increase, manufacturing investment is still virtually 20 per cent. below what it was when he came to office, still lower than at the time of the three-day week and only at the level of 1960? Is he aware that, as a result of the collapse of manufacturing investment under the Government and their failure to sustain the level of investment at the level that they inherited in 1979, we have lost £10·6 billion in manufacturing investment?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman persistently refuses to recognise that, since the worst trough of the slump in 1981, output has risen by 11 per cent., investment has risen by 19 per cent. and productivity has increased 23 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said, the economic policies that are.being followed are being watched all round the world and many people are trying to emulate them.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Frank Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the current state of the shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of delegations and much correspondence about the shipbuilding industry in recent months.

Mr. Cook: The Minister will be well aware of anxiety about naval shipbuilding capacity in Britain, but is he aware that there are no major projects for merchant shipbuilding ahead for next year? What will the Government do about that lack of work? Are they content to see this once great maritime nation become bereft of any merchant shipbuilding capacity and dependent for its supplies of such vessels on countries overseas?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon Friend accepted the proposals that British Shipbuilders put to us for a reduction in capacity. My right hon. Friend said at the time that there will be sufficient capacity for the orders that we hope to get. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made to secure such orders.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although he has had representations from a wide range of people in the Cleveland area, especially about the closure of Smith's dock, it is a little difficult to explain to them how a shipbuilding yard in Tasmania is successfully tendering for the Isle of Wight ferry?

Mr. Morrison: I am well aware of the delegations that I have received, and my hon. Friend has been in touch ceaselessly about the future of Smith's dock. I appreciate the difficulties in which he and those who work there find themselves. Difficult decisions have to be made when one has over-capacity.

Mr.Clay: Is the Minister aware that, in May this year, Japanese shipyards received orders for 40 cargo ships foreign to Japan, representing 295,000 gross registered tonnes, which is 50,000 tonnes more than British Shipbuilders says will be required in a whole year for it to stop all the proposed closures and redundancies? If Japan can get that many overseas orders in one month, which was a bad month for them, how on earth is it that the Government cannot enable British Shipbuilders to get the same amount in one year?

Mr. Morrison: I can neither confirm nor deny the hon. Gentleman's figures about Japanese shipyards. He will appreciate — he has been to see me as part of a delegation —that every effort is being made. Every effort will continue to be made.

Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend tell the true story about the evolution of shipbuilding throughout the world? We have been outclassed, outworked, underpriced, unprepared to deliver ships on time, we have had deplorable labour relations and the trade union movement has been out of control. Will my hon. Friend make it clear once and for all that these chickens are now coming home to roost?

Mr. Morrison: As I have persistently said, British Shipbuilders will get orders only if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) forcefully points out, it is competitive. That is very necessary. It is

fair to add that whether one is talking about the Japanese or European shipyards or anywhere else, there is surplus capacity of ships and shipbuilding.

Mr. Williams: I am astonished that a local Member would sell out his own shipyard and workers in the way in which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) just did. May I ask the Minister whether he realises that there is now deep gloom in the Swan Hunter yard and Vosper Thornycroft as a result of the placing of a recent frigate order? Does he realise that that means that one of those yards is likely to close? As for the level of protection that one of the yards is receiving, we can guess which one it might be. Can the Minister tell us what plans he has to help those yards, since clearly one local Member has no intention of doing so?

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman were to inquire at Swan Hunter, he would quickly discover that it has a close relationship with my Department and myself. That relationship inevitably means that the sort of communication that it wants with the Government is properly put.
Later—

Mr. Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that only a few minutes ago the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, made a slanderous attack on me by suggesting that I was speaking against the shipbuilding industry of Southampton. I want to put the record straight. There is no shipbuilding industry in my constituency, although the industry is ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We frequently hear things in this House that we do not like and with which we disagree. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to have a second opportunity to answer the point.

Mr. Hill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue. He will have to find other ways to put his case.

Design Education

Mr. Wood: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans any further design education initiatives in the higher education sector and in the schools.

Mr. Butcher: In collaboration with the Department of Education and Science and other interested bodies, the Department continues to support a wide range of design initiatives at all levels of education. In particular, I am examining proposals for the development of business training for designers, extension of the young designers into industry scheme and support for design and primary education, implementing the recent consultative report.

Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that schools and other educational institutions are paying enough attention to the needs of industry? Is he equally satisfied that industry is taking enough interest in what is going on in schools and educational institutions?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his analysis. There has been criticism in the past that design departments should introduce more business discipline


into the design curriculum and that business men, especially on business management courses, should understand more about why design has not been used as an effective force in reconquering markets that have been lost to British companies. My hon. Friend has it right, and we reflect those views in our education policy.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister referred to the initiatives being taken to make up for some of the deficiencies. Is it not a fact that industry already recognises many shortages of skills for various parts of industry? Does that not clearly fall at the feet of the Government, who, only three or four year ago, decided to do away with the industrial training

boards, thereby creating many deficiencies? Is it not time that there was a rethink with a view to reintroducing proper industrial training?

Mr. Butcher: It is precisely because the Department of Trade and Industry recognises the representations from the engineering industry and the information technology industry in particular, that our skill shortage committee produced a whole raft of policies for reducing the skill shortage, especially in engineering and technology. Some of the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. No doubt those views will be communicated to him.

Irish Foreign Minister (Representations)

Mr. Ian Gow: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what complaints he has received from the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland about the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland and what response he has made to those complaints.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I have received messages from Mr. Barry expressing his concern about the events of recent days in Northern Ireland and his assessment of the impact on the nationalist community and in particular his criticism of certain operational decisions of the RUC. I have today issued a statement making clear that operational decisions on routeing of parades are entirely a matter for the Chief Constable. I have also expressed my support for the way in which tie RUC sought to deal even-handedly with both communities and to protect law-abiding people from violence from whatever quarter it comes.

Mr. Gow: As my right hon. Friend has rightly made clear, responsibility for operational matters of the RUC is for the Chief Constable and not for him. Will he make it doubly clear that there is no responsibility whatever enjoyed by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic for operational matters which fall within the responsibility of the Chief Constable? Will he remind the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic of the provisions of article 9(b) of the Anglo-Irish agreement, that the conference has no operational responsibilities? Finally, is my right hon. Friend aware that the complaints which have been made by the Irish Foreign Minister are only a precursor of further serious disagreement between London and Dublin as a result of the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: The answer is yes, Sir, to both of my hon. Friend's questions. There are great tensions in Northern Ireland during the marching season. I have just returned again from the Province, and my view has again been confirmed that there is a widely held opinion among both sides of the community that the violence, which was extremely regrettable, was very much less than might have been and was predicted by many. I think that much of that was to do with the sensible and wise policing decisions which were taken. I have included in my statement my sympathy to the members of the RUC who were injured during the weekend's events in seeking to protect both communities from violence from either extreme.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not clear that, contrary to statements made by Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Irish Republic are under the impression that the Anglo-Irish agreement has given them a voice in the internal administration of a part of the United Kingdom? What steps do the Government intend to take to correct that impression?

Mr. King: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the Province, knows perfectly well that the Irish Government have always been concerned about issues affecting the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and have made representations over the years about different matters that have given rise to concern. I think that we should recognise that that has been the practice in the past as well.

Mr. Julian Amery: Has my right hon. Friend considered the article written by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, that appeared in the Daily Telegraph two days ago in which he argued the case against integration and stated that that would be contrary to the Anglo-Irish agreement? Could there be a clearer admission that we have, in effect, surrendered an element of sovereignty to the Republic? Can he be surprised that the Irish Foreign Minister has taken the action that he has?

Mr. King: I am not quite sure how that arises from the private notice question. I note, however, the comment of my right hon. Friend. He will know that it is the Government's policy to seek to pursue an agreed basis for devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when provocative Orange marchers are properly routed and when Nationalist and Catholic homes are protected properly against murderous thugs, there will be no need for Mr. Peter Barry to make the representations that he made or in the manner in which he made them? Does the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), not to mention the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), really wish to see this role passed back to Sinn Fein of the IRA? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that to happen.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, of the difficulties that are posed, especially during the marching season and at the time of the 12th. I hope that he will accept from my confidence that every possible thing was done and will be done to protect law-abiding communities on both sides of the community from violence and intimidation of the sort that we have seen. We shall be determined to ensure that every effort is made to bring those responsible to justice.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would not nearly every hon. Member agree with my right hon. Friend that the RUC deserves the highest praise for its work under the special strain that has been placed upon it since the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement? Was it not claimed for that agreement that this sort of interfering megaphone diplomacy would be obviated by the existence of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference? Is this not further evidence of the futility of the agreement? Would it not be a good idea to let it wither?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will recall the strain under which the RUC was put last year at the time of the marching season, as well as this year. It is known that every year this is a time of great difficulty. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's tribute to the RUC. Hon. Members who may not have been present in the Province but who saw the television pictures will have seen the way in which the RUC has stood against thugs and hooligans from both communities in the interests of protecting law-abiding citizens. The RUC has earned our admiration and respect for its efforts.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State explain to those of us who voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement and thought that it was counterproductive why Mr. Peter Barry did not consult him first? Was there any sign that these great public statements were to be made, and was there any consultation with the Government?

Mr. King: Obviously, I was aware of the general concern that the Irish Government have had and continue to have about the position of the Nationalist community and the dangers to which it may be exposed. However, I did not have prior notice of the particular statement which is the origin of the private notice question.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: For those of us who support the Anglo-Irish agreement, is it not singularly painful that Mr. Barry should have made a public statement in which he said:
I want Nationalists to know that I am determined to see to it that their interests are safeguarded and their physical security is protected.
That is an Irish Minister speaking about British territory. How dare he do such a thing? Could the even-handedness of the RUC possibly be shown more clearly than in the fact that hundreds of its men and women have been shot by the IRA and scores of them burnt out of their homes by so-called Loyalists? The RUC is in the middle. It is doing its duty and it deserves tribute.

Mr. King: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that I have paid that tribute unstintingly because I recognise that the RUC must discharge an extremely difficult role. Both communities owe the RUC a great debt of gratitude that the past weekend passed relatively peaceably, although there was still more violence than we would like to see, and certainly more peaceably than many had expected. I understand the concerns of the Irish Government which they have always expressed about the position of the Nationalist community, and the interest that they take. They are also concerned when there may be Republican attacks on Unionist and Protestant homes. Our job is to try to deal even-handedly and to respect both traditions. In the weeks ahead, I hope that we can look to all the people of the Province on both sides of the community also to show that same respect for the traditions of the other side.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) making a mountain out of a molehill?

Mr. King: That would be for the House to judge. I certainly do not in any way regard the concerns expressed on both sides of the community as making a mountain out of a molehill. We are determined to see proper appreciation given to the RUC and the security forces in the vital work which they do for the preservation of law and order.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is not the reality that, although the content of Mr. Barry's representations may have some substance, his intervention is both misconceived and counter-productive? Given the Anglo-Irish agreement and the make-up of the RUC, do not Sir John Hermon and the RUC deserve commendation for being able to police the Anglo-Irish agreement? Given that the agreement is now in existence, should not the House support the RUC in its efforts to police that agreement?

Mr. King: It is not a question of policing the Anglo-Irish agreement. I hope that the whole House will support the preservation of law and order and the repudiation of violence from whatever quarter it comes. That is the policy to which the RUC is wholly committed under the leadership of the Chief Constable, and for which it has the Government's full support and mine.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Anglo-Irish agreement was to provide a consultative framework, whereby the Republic of Ireland could make representations to Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the Nationalist community in the North so as to prevent ad hoc statements emanating from Dublin which in the past were unhelpful to Anglo-Irish relations? Does not the Secretary of State agree that, at least in the area of public relations, the Anglo-Irish agreement is in its infancy?
There is, of course, an anger behind such statements as those made by the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland that is shared by all right hon. and hon. Members — anger that innocent people in Rasharkin, County Antrim, can have their homes sacked by so-called Unionists, suitably and cowardly masked; anger that there is nightly rioting in the Manor street area of north Belfast; anger at the many incidents of stone-throwing, petrol bombing, overturning of vehicles, injury to limb and loss of life that have become such a tragic feature of the so-called marching season.
Will the Secretary of State convey to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary our congratulations on the news that nine people have been charged following attacks on Catholic homes in Ballymoney, and seven charged after the Rasharkin attacks, and that a cache of petrol bombs has been discovered?
Will the Secretary of State finally note that those who are the perpetrators, the instigators and the evil hands and minds behind such violence cannot and will not see the Anglo-Irish agreement torn up? This House will not succumb to such inordinate and extreme pressures.
Patience and private representations by all those in positions of influence will have their impact in assuaging the present position when feelings are running so high on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the RUC. He said that feelings are running high on the streets of Northern Ireland, and it is indeed true of some streets. However, one of the messages of last weekend is that the overwhelming majority of people in the Province wish violence to be avoided and civilised behaviour to continue between the communities.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the perpetrators of violence, from whichever quarter they come, will be sought. I know that the RUC is determined to bring them to justice.

Hon. Members (Dress)

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter may appear to be trivial, but most hon. Members have received on many occasions representations concerned with respect in every form. You made a ruling last week that, if hon. Members were to be seen in this House and called during questions, they could be without a jacket but not without a tie.
Although this may appear to be a small point, respect for the person and respect for property at large are subjects that are dealt with frequently in our mailbags. There must be respect in this House. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that a lead is given. Today you called the hon.


Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), although he was not wearing a tie. Have you changed your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a trivial point. I suggested to the House that we should maintain standards of dress, but I certainly will not put myself in a position that prevents me from calling hon. Members because of the way in which they dress.

Fishburn Coke Works

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and importantc matter that should have urgent consideration, namely.
the announcement yesterday by British Smokeless Fuels that it will close the Fishburn coke works with the loss of over 200 jobs.
Three years ago almost to the day, this House debated a proposal to close Fishburn. That debate was the climax of a successful campaign to keep the works open. At that time, male unemployment in the Fishburn area stood at 48·9 per cent., with total unemployment standing at more than 40 per cent.
Today, we are faced with a fresh closure proposal. Yet unemployment in my constituency is worse, with more than 4,000 jobs, mainly in the manufacturing sector, having been lost in the Sedgefield district alone. If Fishburn coke works were to close, the largest employer in Fishburn would be the ambulance station, and even that is under threat.
This is a specific matter because it involves the closure of a coke works and the loss of more than 200 jobs. It is important because communities such as mine face unemployment that increasingly has an out-of-city dimension every bit as critical as inner city dimensions.
The matter is urgent because, over the past few months, although we are told that we are in the fourth year of an economic recovery, we have faced the loss of some 400 jobs at TI at Blaydon, some 300 at ICI at Billingham, 2,500 at the Teesside and Sunderland shipyards, 800 at Tyneside shipyards, and 850 at NEI.
The question that people in the north-east ask is, how much more unemployment in the name of market forces must we tolerate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement yesterday by British Smokeless Fuels that it will close the Fishburn coke works with the loss of over 200 jobs.
I in no way underestimate the importance of the matter to the hon. Member and to his constituents, but I regret that I do not consider that it is a matter that should be raised under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Leyland Bus

Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to announce the date for the decision for the future of Leyland Bus.
During trade and industry questions today, Ministers were repeatedly asked when a decision on the future of Leyland Bus would be announced. Ministers constantly refused to give any date. What worries hon. Members, especially those who represent constituencies with thousands of workers in Leyland Bus, is that the Government's plan may be to delay any announcement until the House rises and to make an announcement during the Parliamentary recess.
This is a specific matter because it relates to British Leyland. Naturally, it is important. Thousands of jobs are at stake. If British Leyland is sold to the Laird group on the basis of the Laird group, which is a small bus producer, acquiring a large market share, it will be a bad day for British industry.
It is important that we should have an opportunity to debate this matter, especially in view of the fact that we have not debated Leyland Bus in the context of previous debates. It may be that the Government have an ambition in mind that is not consistent with proper parliamentary scrutiny of this vital industrial matter.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to announce the date for the decision for the future of Leyland Bus.
I have listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Member said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether to give it priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that the right hon. and learned Member has raised should be discussed under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Abolition of Vehicle Registration Prefix

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the vehicle registration prefix and to provide for a continuous series of vehicle registration numbers.
My reason for the Bill is that 20 per cent. of vehicle sales in the United Kingdom are made in the month of August. Unfortunately, that places the British motoring and components industry at a great disadvantage compared with its competitors on the continent. Britain must be able to cope with the August bank holiday and the summer holidays in July. In Europe, August is a holiday month and a dead month for vehicle sales. In July, therefore, our European competitors turn the whole of their production over to right-hand vehicles, thus placing our industry at a great disadvantage.
In Europe, vehicle registration numbers are based not on the year in which the vehicle is produced but on where the owner lives. This happens in France, Italy and Germany. The vehicle's registration number remains the same as long as the person owns the vehicle. It changes only if the vehicle is sold to someone in another district. It would be of benefit to us if we moved to such a system.
I am informed that the police object to this proposed change. They claim that people recognise the prefix in the vehicle registration number and therefore criminals can be traced. That is not totally true. If it were, surely it should apply in Northern Ireland, but it does not. Registration numbers based on postal codes would overcome that difficulty. People will soon be able to recognise the new number plates.
If sales were spread over 12 months, it would prevent the laying off of workers when they return after the July holidays. If we eliminated the advantage that we give to European manufacturers who swamp the British market with their products, we could sell more British cars and components and increase employment. My aim is not to keep up with the Joneses but to provide employment for them. I do not understand why we continually give our competitors a dagger which they can thrust into the stomach of British industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robert N. Wareing. Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. George Park.

ABOLITION OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION PREFIX

Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the vehicle registration prefix and to provide for a continuous series of vehicle registration numbers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 October and to be printed [Bill 209.]

Opposition Day

19TH ALLOTTED DAY

South Africa

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. So far, no fewer than 16 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their interest in this important debate. No fewer than five of them are Privy Councillors. I appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the danger to the Commonwealth if Her Majesty's Government continues its policy of trying to prevent the imposition of strict sanctions against apartheid, calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the adoption of effective economic measures against the South African Government, as recommended by the Eminent Persons Group, in order to exert strong pressure and thereby promote the ending of apartheid, which is essential to preventing a bloodbath in South Africa with all the misery and political, social and economic chaos which would accompany it.
We are now in the final stages of a drama, the implications of which for Britain, South Africa and indeed the Commonwealth seem to be spreading almost every day. It is the last act of that drama, an act that began less than three years ago in New Delhi when the Prime Minister joined the other Commonwealth Heads of Government in setting the objective of what she apparently then hoped would be a common policy for the whole of the Commonwealth. The objective was defined as the
eradication of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule on the basis of free and fair exercise of universal adult suffrage by all the people in a united and non-fragmented South Africa.
I fear that the Prime Minister has sometimes forgotten those words in some of her recent statements about the objectives of negotiations.
All the members of the last Commonwealth summit in the autumn agreed that sanctions should be adopted to help to achieve that objective, but the Prime Minister's veto led to the setting up of the Eminent Persons Group to report within six months and, failing a satisfactory report, sanctions would be considered at the next summit, which is now under two weeks away.
It is just over a month since the House agreed unanimously a Government amendment to an Opposition motion, calling on Her Majesty's Government
to work actively … for effective measures which will help achieve a peaceful solution in South Africa".
In winding up the debate, the Minister of State said that
the measures taken must be effective. They may not be limited to economic measures … There is no point in introducing measures unless they have a significant effect on the South African Government."—[Official Report, 17 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 980–90.]
It was that statement by the Minister of State that led the Opposition not to oppose the Government amendment.
Since then the European Community has held a summit conference at The Hague at which the Prime Minister herself endorsed a statement that a national dialogue with authentic leaders of the black population was essential to halt a further escalation of violence, and that such a

dialogue required the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and the lifting of the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties. The same summit meeting asked the Foreign Secretary as the Presidency Foreign Minister to visit South Africa to establish those conditions.
Meanwhile, the Community would consult on further measures that might be needed, covering, in particular, a ban on new investments, the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa. However, the moment that that conference was over, the Prime Minister followed the precedent that she set at the Nassau meeting by rubbishing its conclusions. The chairman of the summit, the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, told the press immediately after it closed that all the members of the summit had agreed to impose that list of sanctions as a minimum if the Foreign Secretary's mission failed. But the Prime Minister immediately said that that was not true; there was no commitment whatever by any of the Ministers to impose that list of sanctions. She stuck to her story, although Mr. Lubbers, as chairman, was confirmed in his account by the Danish Prime Minister and, indeed, by President Mitterrand. Moreover, it was confirmed in the House a little over a week ago by the Prime Minister's own Secretary of State for Energy, who told us in an answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy):
The action on South African coal has been agreed by the European Community".
The right hon. Gentleman also told my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse):
the European leaders have agreed upon an approach to South Africa which after three months would include action on a number of materials, including coal. That is the right approach"—
an echo, I suppose, of some propaganda by his party in the past—
and I hope that it will have some influence on negotiations in the coming months."—[Official Report, 7 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 3–7.]
Some hope. The Prime Minister sent the Foreign Secretary on his mission, to quote the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley),
up the creek without a paddle and then brought home without a canoe.
Many of us on both sides of the House will think that, though colourful, that was an accurate description of the fate to which the right hon. Lady condemned her Foreign Secretary.
We all know that the Foreign Secretary never wanted to go at all. He had an altercation with the Prime Minister on the matter as he was entering the aircraft on the way to The Hague. According to one of the newspapers that overheard, she told him, "If that's the way you feel, perhaps you had better not come at all." But he went.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary finally agreed to be the fall guy for the Prime Minister's policies.

Mr. Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way.
What all of us in the Opposition want to know is that if the Prime Minister was really determined on that mission of appeasement, why did she not follow the precedent set by her predecessor, Neville Chamberlain,


and go herself? The South Africans themselves have said that if anyone was likely to influence their position, it would be the Prime Minister, whose common sense and sterling qualities they have recently praised in lavish terms.
As it was, the right hon. Lady sent the Foreign Secretary. Almost from the moment when his aircraft left the tarmac at Heathrow, she drove nail after nail into the coffin of his mission with an astonishing series of interviews, which, I heard this morning on the "Today" programme, were described yesterday by the leading Singapore newspaper as a series of provocative statements that seemed designed to destroy the Commonwealth games. If that were their purpose, they certainly seem to have had some success.
I doubt whether any Foreign Secretary in British history has been deliberately exposed by his own Prime Minister to such a series of humiliating snubs from so many Governments. First, we had the casual refusal of President Botha to see the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of his mission. Then we had the refusal of all the leading blacks in South Africa, from Bishop Tutu to Nelson Mandela, to see him when he went there. We had the refusal of the African National Congress to meet him in Lusaka and then a series of humiliating rebuffs from Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Indeed, I think that he will agree that the only comfort that he had on that ill-starred mission was the offer of prawns by the Marxist leader of Mozambique.
Since then the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney, has given the Prime Minister herself a piece of his mind and told her that if she will not join the rest of the Commonwealth in sanctions Canada will act unilaterally. The Prime Minister of Australia has given her the same message. The fact is that she has not now one single friend left in the Commonwealth and scarcely one left in the European Community, either. The only friend that she has made by her astonishing behaviour in the past few weeks is the President of the apartheid regime in South Africa. No doubt the praise that she received from him was responsible for her nostalgic regret that South Africa was not still in the Commonwealth.
All that, however, was water off a duck's back to the Prime Minister, who told the world, "If I am right and everyone else is wrong, what does it matter?" It matters a great deal to all of us. She has already wrecked the Commonwealth games and we regret that as much as anyone. Far more serious, however, she now risks wrecking the Commonwealth itself and creating a constitutional crisis of major dimensions involving the Palace itself. Events have reached such a stage that newspapers reported today that several of her senior Cabinet colleagues had been warning the press in the past 24 hours about such a constitutional crisis.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's arguments have become wilder and wilder. At first, she stuck to the Foreign Office line, arguing against comprehensive sanctions. More recently, however, she has been arguing against any kind of action which might have any effect on the South African Government. She has proved an assiduous acolyte of the Botha charm school in recent weeks. She has accused Bishop Tutu, Archbishop Hurley and the Synod of the Church of England of immorality. She has wept crocodile tears at the potential suffering of blacks in South Africa, but there has not been a murmur

of complaint from her about their actual suffering in the past 30 years. Having met some of the church people in South Africa who have made great sacrifices in the fight against apartheid, including a young Catholic priest who has been tear-gassed eight times in the past few months conducting black funerals, I believe that the Prime Minister should apologise in the House for her disgraceful and totally unmerited accusation of immorality.
We have seen the Prime Minister's eyes brim with compassion at the prospect of unemployment in the United Kingdom arising out of sanctions against South Africa, but we now hear that at most 20,000 jobs might be lost if mandatory comprehensive sanctions were introduced immediately. Yet through her own policies the Prime Minister has created 2 million unemployed in this country in the past few years without batting an eyelid. Her display of compassion has deceived no one. As Foreign Minister Botha has said, her policy is determined not by political or moral considerations but by commercial consideration—no doubt a reference to the fact that nearly half the Conservative party's funds, or more than £1 billion, is contributed by firms with operations or estate in South Africa. [Interruption.] I am sorry—£1 million.
The Prime Minister's worry about the impact of sanctions on the British economy is misplaced. It has been argued with unassailable logic by the Eminent Persons Group—a group which included Lord Barber, who has a major financial stake in South Africa and great knowledge of South Africa through his position as chairman of the Standard Chartered Bank—that unless the outside world imposes sanctions there is no chance of the dialogue without which apartheid cannot be brought to an end and without which there will be an inexorable slide into a bloodbath worse than anything since the second world war, to quote Lord Barber himself, in which all Britain's commercial interests as well as all her political influence would be lost. No one has argued that point more strongly than the Conservative ex-Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, whom no one could accuse of not being a hard-headed Conservative.
The point made by the Eminent Persons Group, which has also been made time and again within and outside the House, is that sanctions are not an alternative to negotiation but the only means of promoting the conditions in which a meaningful dialogue can take place. Nothing, however, can dent the Prime Minister's unassailable complacency and the inspissated ignorance from which it springs. The other day she told the House that the United Kingdom was doing more than any other country in sanctions against South Africa, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) listed in a letter to her 16 countries which were doing more. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that many Commonwealth leaders opposed sanctions as she did, but she could not name even one. She is even rewriting history, quoting Wilberforce of all people in her support the other day for his success in stopping the slave trade. Wilberforce's opponents in the Chamber — the West Indians in Westminster, as they called themselves—used exactly the arguments that the Prime Minister is now using, claiming that the ending of slavery would damage Britain's commercial interests and would be bad for the slaves themselves. In fact, slavery was finally stopped by a naval blockade. The Prime Minister may care to reflect on that precedent.
In her recent series of interviews, the Prime Minister referred time and again to the Rhodesian settlement as a settlement by negotiation which she would wish to follow in relation to South Africa.

Mr. Hunter: rose—

Mr. Healey: I will give way in a moment.
The Rhodesian settlement took place only because the Prime Minister reversed the policy on which she was elected, and she did so under pressure from the Commonwealth at a conference attended by the Queen against the Prime Minister's firm advice. The Prime Minister may care to reflect on that analogy. She advised Her Majesty not to attend the Lusaka conference on Rhodesia, but the Queen subsequently issued a statement saying that she had noted the advice but regarded her duty to the Commonwealth as taking precedence over accepting the advice of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Bowen Wells: rose—

Mr. Healey: On that occasion, the Prime Minister continued to apply sanctions as a basis for a settlement. The other factor in producing a settlement was a large scale guerrilla war in which at least 12,000 people lost their lives in the preceding 12 months. As we know—those who do not may care to read an interesting book by Mr. Miles Hudson, then adviser to the Conservative Government—the major influence in getting the Prime Minister to reverse her position was Lord Carrington. Let us hope that his successor will follow his example and have equal success in getting the Prime Minister to reverse her position.
There are some signs of movement. Contrary to what the Prime Minister told the House only last week, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has made a speech saying that the Government should take active measures to restrain South African trade which could culminate, if necessary, in a trade blockade. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may make further remarks along these lines this afternoon.
The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr, Brittan), who, until the Foreign Secretary, was the Prime Minister's most eminent fall guy, made an interesting speech last week. He said—and I hope that his colleagues on the Conservative Benches will ponder his words—that if the Foreign Secretary
is to stand the remotest chance of success he must go armed with the necessary authority. Whatever their disadvantages, international coercive measures, whether formally labelled as sanctions or not, are one of the few weapons in our arsenal against the citadel of apartheid beyond mere persuasion … The world must know of our readiness to have recourse to stronger measures against the Pretoria regime in the event of the failure of Sir Geoffrey's mission. Without that knowledge, the mission will not be just, as is inevitable, formidably difficult, but utterly hopeless.
This is a growing feeling among all in this country and outside who watch the Foreign Secretary's lamentable journey.

Mr. Bowen Wells: What does the right hon. Gentleman think should take place? Does he want to impose a blockade o r South Africa, and, if so—

Mr. Healey: That is the point to which I am coming.

Mr. Wells: If he is coming to it, will the right hon. Gentleman spell out what repercussions that would have on the economy, and particularly on the black people of South Africa?

Mr. Healey: I was unwise to give way, because this is precisely the series of points to which I am coming.
The question left is what sort of sanctions are most likely to be, to use the Prime Minister's word, effective — not signs and gestures, the latest phrase that the Prime Minister has produced as a surrogate for sanctions. When she discussed in an interview with Mr. Hugo Young the possibility of signs or signals and gestures, she made it clear that they are not effective, and she is right. I believed before my visit to South Africa—and I said this in the House a month ago—that a gradual escalation of sanctions by stages is the best way to approach the problem. However, since my visit I have changed my mind. I found that every person to whom I spoke in the black community, both inside and outside South Africa, and those business men in the white community — a small minority, some of whom I met in Lusaka and Johannesburg—believe that sanctions are necessary, and that by far the best would be comprehensive mandatory sanctions because they would bring the matter to a head faster. It is no good the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), the West Indian on the Government Back Benches, wagging his head—

Mr. Bowen Wells: West Indian?

Mr. Healey: I am talking about the West Indians who supported slavery and used the same argument as the hon. Member for Luton, North, which is that to abolish slavery would damage British commercial interests and the interests of the black slaves.
The people with whom I talked, the black leaders, the church people, the members of the United Democratic Front, trade unions, members of the ANC, members of the Zambian Government, all thought that comprehensive mandatory sanctions would be best because they are quickest and sharpest.
The Commonwealth Secretary made a speech yesterday that I hope that all hon. Members will take the opportunity to read, because sneering at the Commonwealth will not save us from a constitutional crisis if the Prime Minister destroys the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Secretary argued—and there is a good deal in this—that there is a case for something less than comprehensive sanctions. They can be kept as a deterrent against South Africa retaliating on the front-line states againt something less than comprehensive sanctions. I see that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) sees merit in that. I am glad that this measure commends itself to at least some Conservative Members.
If we do not go all out for comprehensive mandatory sanctions, which would require the acquiescence of the United States Administration and the Security Council as well of the British Govenment, Mr. Malcolm Fraser is 1,000 times right when he argues, as he did in yesterday's international Herald Tribune, that
The purpose of sanctions would not be to destroy the South African economy. They would need to be constructed in such a way as to give the economy and the white population in particular a real body blow. It is not a question of turning the screw gently and steadily, it is a question of a hard blow".
He is right and all those who have come to accept the case for sanctions, with whom I have discussed the matter inside South and southern Africa, take the same view. It would be better to concentrate on banning key South African exports because that is a very much more simple problem than restraining all South African imports.


Without the currency earned by exports, the South African Government's capacity to import is severely constrained. That would include measures on gold, diamonds and minerals.
The Prime Minister has argued that to do anything on gold would help the Soviet Union. That would be true of a ban on gold exports from South Africa, although such a ban might be evaded to some extent by smuggling, not least from the middle east. If the Governments of the Western world took seriously their often stated desire to de-monetarise gold, the easiest way to achieve this objective would be for the countries with large gold stocks to start selling them off so as to depress the price of gold. This would be beneficial to the monetary system in the Western world, and would hurt South Africa and, incidentally, the Soviet Union.
A ban on all investment is desirable, but it would have little effect beyond what will happen anyway. I have not met anyone recently who is prepared to put a penny of new money into South Africa if he can help it. Most of the big multinationals in South Africa have already begun withdrawing or have withdrawn. For example, some are selling off their machinery abroad. That has happened in several cases. There is a steady drain of trained professional people with marketing skills. I am sure that the Chancellor will be unhappy to hear that, of 160 auditors in South Africa a year ago, 60 will have left by the end of the year. The trickle of whites who left Zimbabwe after independence are returning, because they see the prospects as being far more hopeful than staying in South Africa.
I agree that whatever package of measures is finally adopted must be the subject of collective action of a large number of states, one hopes through the United Nations. I hope that the Prime Minister was being serious when she told Mr. Malcolm Rutherford of the Financial Times in an interesting interview published about a week ago that she would some day go to the United Nations for mandatory collective sanctions, although not comprehensive sanctions.
Whatever package is chosen must be strict and swift. It is no good the Prime Minister thinking that she can put off decisions now beyond the Commonwealth conference, as she told one interviewer during the bizarre burst of reflection to which she treated us 10 days ago. To seek delay now would mean that decisions would come too late and at stake now is not just the fate of the suffering millions in South Africa but the fate of those in the frontline states who are under constant attack and threat from the apartheid regime. At stake is the Commonwealth and the British constitution. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House who value those things to apply all possible pressure to the Prime Minister before it is too late. I ask the House to approve the motion.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`reasserts its commitment to the Commonwealth and the goal of peaceful change in South Africa through negotiation; does not believe that general economic sanctions would help to secure that objective; notes that the Government is committed by the Nassau Accord and the Declaration by the European

Council at The Hague on 27th June 1986 to consultations with the Commonwealth, the Community and other allies on further measures which might be needed; and welcomes the efforts of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his capacity as President of the Twelve to establish conditions in which negotiations can take place.'.
As so often on these occasions, it would not be fruitful for me to try to follow the hyperbolic and fanciful course charted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He has roamed far and wide in his reminiscences about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with whom he seems to be continually and astonishingly fascinated to the point of hyperbole. He found himself drawn into anecdotage of every kind, finally embarking upon the proposition that we were committed to £1 billion from South African funds. [Interruption.] We recollect his days of mathematical accuracy.
I am concerned to discuss what contribution Britain, as a member of the Commonwealth, of the summit Seven and of the European Community, can make to the prospects of peace, prosperity and freedom for the 32 million people of South Africa. We in Europe should approach the subject carefully because European history is not free of racial conflict. We have no right to strike a self-righteous pose on the subject. European history has taught the world tragic lessons about the evil of discrimination against human beings on grounds of creed or race. So it would be a step forward in our discussion of South Africa if we were to approach that desperately difficult problem with a little less emphasis on our own self-righteousness and a great deal more emphasis on the practical objectives that we should pursue.
If Europe understands this, as it does, and if it understands, as it does, the full strength of the case against apartheid, so too does the Commonwealth. I quote:
United in our desire to rid the world of the evils of racism and racial prejudice, we proclaim our faith in the inherent dignity and worth of the human person … We reject as inhuman and intolerable all policies designed to perpetuate apartheid, racial segregation, or other policies based on theories that racial groups are or may be inherently superior of inferior.
Those words come from the Lusaka Commonwealth declaration which, far beyond the myths peddled by the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend helped to frame in 1979 as the foundation for the success of the Government that she leads in securing the independent freedom of Zimbabwe. That is the reality of the position of the Government of my right hon. Friend. Those words are the very foundation of this Government's policy towards South Africa.
It is unacceptable to us that the rights of minorities should be suppressed by majorities, whatever their colour. That is why Britain has so often, and even today, provided a refuge for men and women who face oppression at home —from Africa as well as from other continents. By the same token, we cannot accept that the rights of the black and coloured majority in South Africa should be subordinated to those of the white minority in the name of Christianity, civilisation and Western values. It must be said that it is not Christian, not civilised and certainly not in the interests of the West that such a system should survive.
So, too, it must be said that explicit recognition by the South African Government leaders that apartheid must


end is an important step in the right direction. We have had just such explicit recognition from the President of the South African Government himself.
What the world now wishes to see—and there should be no difference between both sides of the House on this — is a decisive movement towards a system that will command the approval and consent of all the people of South Africa. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may be dismayed to hear me asserting these truths, but we hold these views to be most important. We understand something else as well. We understand, and it is right that we should, the fears of some South Africans which act as a constraint on change. We say that those fears are more likely to be fulfilled if grave decisions are not taken to bring about change rapidly enough.
It must be recognised that the decisions that have to be taken will require great bravery. For that reason, we approach the matter with sympathy and understanding. That is why the European Council meeting at The Hague last month underlined the urgent need, not for violence, but to promote dialogue in South Africa and to achieve peaceful change. The European Council fully recognised the importance of the work done by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to promote the same objective. That group came into existence not because of the obduracy or intransigence of my hon. Friend but because my right hon. Friend, with other Commonwealth leaders, was able to reach a common position upon the desirability of such a group. It should be acknowledged that that group has been a unique creation which only the Commonwealth could have created. Its work was of enormous importance.
It was because the European leaders had the desire to renew the momentum of the work of that group that they asked me, as President of the Council of Ministers, to undertake a fresh mission on behalf of the 12 European nations. The European Council set precise objectives for that mission. Its objectives were the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and the unbanning of the ANC, the PAC and other political parties. I do not underestimate the difficulty of that task but I have no doubt that it is right that this further effort should be made.
That is why last week, as the first part of my mission, I was glad to consult President Kaunda, President Machel and Prime Minister Mugabe. I had full, effective consideration of all the issues with those Heads of Government. This morning, I also consulted President Masire of Botswana. It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to talk about rebuffs and exchanges of that kind. I have undertaken the mission with the authority of the European Community. Those missions have been of great value and I am most grateful to the Heads of Government whom I have met.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am not arguing against the Foreign Secretary's mission although I do not think it will meet with success. Suppose that he does everything humanly possible to argue the case with the full backing of the Twelve, but at the end South Africa says that it is not prepared to do anything about getting rid of apartheid, what do he and his Government intend to do?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself in patience, he will hear the answer in due course.
Let me tell the House the first of the five important propositions that I put to each of the leaders that 1 met. First, apartheid must give way to a non-racial, fully representative society. Secondly, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that change in South Africa has taken place, but there must be more change and it must take place more quickly. Thirdly, negotiation still remains the best and quickest means of bringing apartheid to an end. Violence will prolong the process of change and prolong misery. The right setting for dialogue and change should be the suspension of violence on all sides.
Fourthly, I made the point that comprehensive mandatory sanctions would not, as some people like to believe, bring down the South African Government. It is not on the verge of collapse. Finally, for all those reasons, we must continue to identify and exploit every chance and opportunity for dialogue.
Three things emerged from those discussions. First, there was complete— I repeat the word "complete"—agreement about objectives. Secondly, there were significant but understandable differences about the means, including differences between the four leaders whom I met. Thirdly—and this is important—there was a greater readiness to accept the sincerity of the mission that I am undertaking.
I was also able to remind the three leaders of some of the practical and positive actions that we are taking to help to surmount specific difficulties in southern Africa. For the front-line states, these include measures to improve rail and road transport to the outside world and to enhance protection of those links by training for their armed forces, and for the black people of South Africa, the European code of conduct for employers, recently revised, and educational programmes for black South Africans and black trade unions. At The Hague we announced our intention to enhance this programme by £15 million over the next five years.
In the context of The Hague agreement to consult other industrialised countries, a point to which I have already referred, I shall be going to Washington tomorrow for talks with Secretary Shultz and Vice-President Bush. I shall be consulting, as seems to me to be entirely sensible. to see how wide is the common view about the future cooperation. A senior official from my office has already visited Canberra and Tokyo on my behalf, and, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consulted the Prime Minister of Canada.
Next week I shall go again to southern Africa. I expect to see President Botha at the beginning and at the end of this visit and Mr. Pik Botha, the Foreign Affairs Minister, soon after my arrival. The key to progress in South Africa is self-evidently the position of the South African Government.
I shall use those meetings to explore the intentions of the South African Government to take measures to further the dismantling of of apartheid, to urge on them the need to act rapidly and decisively in this direction, if further tragedy is to be averted, and in particular, and most urgently of all, to press on them the need to release Mandela and other political detainees and to unban the African National Congress and other political parties as an essential prerequisite for any dialogue at all.

Mr. John Carlisle: When my right hon. and learned Friend sees President Botha, will he be careful not to impose on the President and the Government of


South Africa an absolute timetable of measures that my right hon. and learned Friend expects to be taken? Particularly in relation to the National Party Congress which is to be held in South Africa in early August, will he ensure that he does not ask the South African Government to impose conditions that they will be unable to deliver until they have consulted their own party and their own people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be presenting the points that I have just described to the South African Government in the context of the definition of my mission arising from The Hague European Council. These discussions will take place against the background of important international meetings that are to be held following my visit. While I am in South Africa I shall seek to meet a wide range of people of all colours, representing all opinions throughout South Africa.
I recognise, of course, that so far there has been reluctance on the part of some South African leaders to meet me in the context of my mission, but, whether or not they agree with our approach, I cannot believe that it is wise for them to withhold their advice at this stage from the mission that I am undertaking. I hope that, on reflection, they will be able to accept the sincerity of the mission that I am undertaking on behalf of the European Community.
The House should recall that this Government, more than any previous British Government, have implemented fully and conscientiously, together with our Commonwealth and European partners, a whole series of measures that are designed to make clear our view of the imperative need to bring apartheid to an end. These measures affect the economic, sporting and cultural relations between this country and South Africa. They have been listed to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and they have this common feature: they have been calculated not to threaten, not to destroy, but to encourage and promote the change, about the need for which we are all agreed.
I wish to leave the House in no doubt about where we stand on the question of possible further measures to achieve that objective. Commonwealth Heads of Government at Nassau agreed that in the absence of adequate progress they would consider the adoption of further measures. At The Hague last month, the European Council committed the Community to enter into consultations with the other industrialised countries in the succeeding three months on further measures which might be needed. As my right hon. Friend said at the subsequent press conference:
All agree that further measures are not excluded.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also told the House on 1 July, certain contingency plans that were outlined in The Hague communique are being made. She went on:
We are not negotiating from weakness. We are negotiating in a way which we believe will have the best chance of success." — [Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 822.]
It is precisely in the same fashion that I am conducting the mission that has been entrusted to me.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear up a point which I know created consternation when

news of the European Community decision reached Africa, because I happened to be in Lusaka? The Prime Minister suggested that it would be a good thing if the Commonwealth summit took no decisions whatsoever on sanctions. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now suggesting that this matter should be left over for a further few months until there can be a meeting of the European Community, or is he prepared to fulfil the obligation which the Prime Minister accepted at the Nassau meeting to consider and take decisions on possible further measures at the Commonwealth summit in a fortnight's time? If not, I warn him that he is in for very, very serious trouble indeed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that at the Commonwealth meeting at the beginning of August and at subsequent Community meetings the commitments we made in each of those respective places to consider further measures will be undertaken. Consideration will be given to them.
However, it is important to understand each of the points that the right hon. Gentleman challenged. There was, and there is, no concept of automaticity about any further measures. There was no misunderstanding about this at The Hague meeting.

Mr. Healey: At The Hague there was misunderstanding.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. Let me tell the House what the Dutch Foreign Minister told the Dutch Parliament on 2 July. There is no doubt about it. He said that not all countries had committed themselves to the package of measures set out in the declaration of 27 June and that there was therefore no automatic obligation on the Community to take further European Community measures in three months' time. That is the position. It was agreed that each of us would consider measures when the time came for consideration, after the three-month process. It was also agreed that no country would rule out any of those measures and that consideration would take place. That is the position.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Dutch chairman of the summit conference, Prime Minister Lubbers, met the press immediately after the conference was over. I have the video tape of his interview. He said that it was agreed by the Heads of Government that measures would be taken if the Foreign Secretary's mission failed. That was endorsed by the Danish Prime Minister, although President Mitterrand said that it was a gentlemen's agreement. Whether that was intended to exclude the right hon. Lady I am not sure. But there is no question that the impression of at least the chairman and other members at that meeting was that a commitment was made, whether formal or informal. Is that the case?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am trying to set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, and I shall try to do so again. Let me return to the words of the communiquée. It was agreed that in the next three months
the Community will enter into consultations with the other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed.
They were identified. It was agreed that in that consideration no country would rule out any of those measures but that the consideration would be honourably


and fairly undertaken. It is true that different comments were made about that at subsequent press conferences on that day. It was as a result of that that the Dutch Foreign Minister was asked to clarify the position as his Government saw it, and it was in those circumstances that he said what I have just read out: that not all countries had committed themselves to the package of measures set out in the declaration.

Mr. Heifer: He was talking about your Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman wants to have the position clarified, he must listen to the clarification given by the Dutch Foreign Minister, as Chairman of the European Council. The Dutch Foreign Minister went on to say:
There was, therefore, no automatic obligation on the Community to take further European Community measures in three months' time.

Mr. Julian Amery: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be very wrong for major steps to be taken before Parliament has been consulted?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the reasons for this debate — and the reason for the debate that we had some weeks ago — is to embrace such consultation with Parliament. I cannot give my right hon. Friend a firm commitment in the light of the Government motion passed by the House, without opposition, prior to the European Council meeting. The interest of Parliament in this matter is understandably intense and that is why we are discussing the matter in detail now.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way again.
There was and is no concept of automaticity about further measures. However, we have agreed to consider these measures. I am engaged in a mission to southern Africa, not to promote measures, but to seek changes and commitments to progress which are desired by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the European Community and the Commonwealth. It must be recognised that I may not achieve those changes. If the mission does not procure tangible and substantial progress in South Africa, I would regard agreement on further measures as likely to be necessary.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has raised a fundamental point. So far this afternoon he has implied that there is a trip wire which immediately, or soon after his return, can generate substantial further measures. He also implies that there are conditions which he expects to achieve when he reaches South Africa. Is it not of the most fundamental importance that these conditions are known and clearly defined?
We are talking about the end of apartheid. What precisely does that mean? Does it mean merely the elimination of all the discriminatory legislation which has appeared on the statute book since 1948? That has always been the definition that we have been asked to accept in this House. Alternatively, does it now mean something more profound — a change in the basic social and economic conditions in that country? If the latter is the case, that applies not only to South Africa but to many other countries in which such social and economic

conditions may be found today. There is no basis on which we can discriminate against South Africa in the latter case as opposed to the former.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the areas of common ground in this debate has, sadly, been the need to deal separately and distinctly with the case of South Africa. That has been the characteristic of meeting after meeting of the international community and of meeting after meeting of this House.
I understand the importance of my hon. Friend's wide-ranging inquiry, but the objective of the mission — as agreed at The Hague —is for me to visit southern Africa in a further effort to establish conditions under which the necessary dialogue can commence. The necessary dialogue will allow negotiations leading to a truly democratic and non-racial South Africa. According to The Hague communiqué:
This dialogue cannot take place as long as recognised leaders of the black community are detained and their organisations are proscribed.
That is the importance of the two objectives about which I have reminded the House on several occasions. That is the nature of the mission and it is clearly defined.

Mr. Robert Adley: Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I share the view that few of us believe that economic sanctions in themselves are a cure-all. Equally, not many of us believe that no further measures should be considered and most people of goodwill would support my right hon. and learned Friend in what he is trying to achieve.
The other day we debated an Opposition motion on this subject and the Government removed the word "economic" from the motion, leaving open the proposition that other measures could be considered. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a point which has not been raised so far today? While the political power in South Africa is largely in the hands of the Afrikaners, much of the economic power still lies in the hands of British South Africans, many of whom enjoy the right to a British passport—even though many were not born here—which they use to travel around the world. In his future consideration of measures, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that point?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point is not lacking in ingenuity and it raises some difficult questions. He may have an opportunity to elaborate upon it in a further intervention.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East underlined the point conceded some weeks ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the deputy leader of the Labour party. That belief is at the heart of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. It is that a policy of general economic sanctions would not be in the interests of the British peoplee or the people of South Africa. If that is common ground, as I take it to be from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it is an important point that should be recognised. That point was at the heart of the speech made today by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, it was at the heart of the point made by the deputy leader of the Labour party and it is on that basis that I would address myself again to my mission.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, my hon. Friend the


Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asked what would happen if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mission did not achieve its intended success. That point has not been answered despite the undertaking that it would be. As the Foreign Secretary is representing the EEC, if the absolute conditions of the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and the equally unconditional unbanning of the ANC do not happen as a consequence of his second or first meeting with P. W. Botha, what will the Secretary of State do? The Secretary of State's earlier statement that he will be prepared to consider further measures will not impress the Afrikaners or the rest of the world.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to take note of what I have already said. It is beyond doubt that, within the Community and the Commonwealth, consideration will be given to the question of further measures on the basis of the objectives that I have described repeatedly in the course of my speech. That appraisal will be undertaken on the basis of the further important point that if the mission does not procure tangible and substantial progress, I would regard agreement on some further measures to be necessary.
Before I was interrupted, I was embracing the common ground that I thought had been established. The Opposition, neither in the motion nor through the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, will not press us to make general, comprehensive economic sanctions. That is an important advance.
There are many families in this country with a real human interest in the future of South Africa and there is also interest in the rest of Europe. In Africa, the human interest in the future of South Africa is even more intense. All these people want a future of peace and justice in South Africa. My mission is not easy but it has a chance. With the support of this House, I will continue to strive for the success of that mission.

Dame Judith Hart: I begin with the assumption that follows on from the Foreign Secretary's last words that, between now and the next opportunity that the House has to debate the subject, matters will have moved on and the Prime Minister will have had to appreciate the need to take further measures. That is not an unreasonable assumption. The Foreign Secretary went as near as he could to admitting that that will be the case and that during the next two months, during the Commonwealth summit meeting in London, and then in preparation for further meetings, the Government must move towards fuller consideration of further measures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) mentioned some of the measures that he believes would be effective. He mentioned coal, gold and arms. He said—as we have all noted today—that South Africa has just announced the manufacture of a new aircraft, which means that until now the arms embargo has been ineffective. It has allowed South Africa to develop its manufacturing capacity for arms, its oil and its air flights.
What distresses me — I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East as well as to the Foreign Secretary — is that we are not devoting the

essence of the debate to considering precisely which sanctions are likely to be the fastest acting and most effective, but will, at the same time, have the least effect on the front-line states and will be totally enforceable. I emphasise the last point because, from my experience when trying to deal with sanctions against Rhodesia, too many commercial buccaneers are supported by their Governments, as was the case with the United States and West Germany and their evasion of the sanctions against Rhodesia in respect of minerals, especially chrome. One must be certain that whatever one does is enforceable, otherwise it becomes nonsense. One must be certain that the measures one takes are effective. If the aim of sanctions is to produce a negotiated settlement and peace instead of a bloodbath, they must be rapidly effective.
It disturbs me that the outstanding area where all of this could be achieved has not even been mentioned in the debate. That is financial sanctions. I draw to the attention of the House, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and of the Foreign Secretary the simple fact that, in the United States, as most of us know, the lobby and the passion of public opinion on South Africa is infinitely greater than it is in Britain. The Congressmen and Senators must heed public opinion and behave accordingly on the issue.
In 1975, the House of Representatives passed a Bill, and in April of this year the Senate passed a Bill by a majority of over 90 to 3, which has now gone to the Senate Finance Committee. Of course, anything can happen to it there and, ultimately, President Reagan could veto it. Nevertheless, it has gone through the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Bill is highly specific. It calls for a total embargo on financial relationships between American financial institutions and South Africa — that includes an embargo on new investments, new loans and the rolling over of loans—and on any more of the negotiations that took place in January and February this year which rescued the South African economy. At the same time, the Bill calls for the entire disinvestment by transnational corporations based in the United States.
If there are to be rapidly effective sanctions, it is important, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the Security Council of the United Nations reaches agreement on this. To do that it is important to have the support of the United States for whatever is agreed. There is no better starting point for that support than a Bill which has gone through Congress and the Senate and is sitting in the Finance Committee with overwhelming support of public opinion in the United States. Not only that, but the Bill has met no great resistance from the American business community, which seems to be more capable of recognising its long-term interests than is the British business community.
If one looks ahead, whether to negotiation or a bloodbath, it is historically evident that in the not too far distant future the world will deal with a black South Africa. Any business interest, such as the South African Chamber of Commerce, which, as I mentioned in the previous debate, gave evidence to the panel of which I was a member, must recognise that its future lies in coming to terms with that simple fact.
It is ludicrous that the House does not give more attention to studying the ins and outs, the pros and cons and the problems and the advantages of introducing early severe financial sanctions. Let me take a possible


disadvantage. What would happen to the British interests in South Africa? The Bank of America recently pulled out of South Africa completely with apparently no grave disadvantage. Barclays Bank has retreated and has transferred its interests in South Africa.
The Foreign Secretary, as far as I know, has in his economic relations department only three officials and a couple of boys capable of considering the economic aspects of the issue. He might have called in masses of people from the Treasury, but I doubt whether they would be terribly helpful. If one considers the self-interest of the British banks, it is doubtful whether any bank has extended its operations in South Africa to the extent where withdrawal would cause it any problems. The position is not the same as the over-extension of some British banks during the debt crisis in Latin America. I doubt whether the self-interest of British banks presents an insuperable barrier to their going along with us. Indeed, they would have to if legislation was introduced for withdrawal, no new loans, no rolling over of loans and no rescheduling of loans to South Africa.
Why could that be important? We do not have much experience to go on. However, we can mention one experience. In August last year, South Africa was in a difficult financial position. It was seeking rescheduling of loans, new loans and a rollover of loans. The rand took a tremendous tumble. By January and February, with the assistance of the Swiss hanker who raced all over Europe to try to whip up support for rescheduling, but who has now withdrawn because he says that not as much progress has been made as he understood would be made, the crisis was over. But between August and then when the rand was under tremendous pressure and when South Africa was desperate about its financial position, we saw some of the smallest but most dramatic moves forward in the attitude of the South African Government towards making concessions on apartheid.
In January or February rescheduling was agreed and everything was wonderful. It appeared that there was no more need to worry about South Africa's financial position. From that date began the events leading up to the state of emergency and all that has happened since. That is only a short period historically, but people cannot quote anything else in evidence and it is strong evidence.
The greatest influence on political change in South Africa, as in every society which is basically capitalist—I use the word not pejoratively but factually—will come from the business community. If the business community is worried, there will probably be the pressure for change. If the Foreign Secretary wishes pressures to achieve negotiation, the business community is priority number one. I do not understand why, in all the talk about general economic sanctions and comprehensive mandatory sanctions, we are not analysing closely what could be done and what measures would be likely to be the most effective.
I mention again briefly the role of the transnational corporations, because the Bill that has gone through the House of Representatives and the Senate calls for complete disinvestment by them. That is presumably something on which we could agree with the Americans to go to the Security Council. We would not be starting from scratch. President Reagan may not like it any more than the Prime Minister would like it, but it is at least a starting point for agreement with the Americans without which no sanctions can be effective.
During the consideration which the Foreign Secretary will give, on his forthcoming visit to South Africa, and I would suppose during the weeks that follow, when precise support for some sanctions must be forthcoming from the British Government, the financial sanctions so much neglected in the discussion on South Africa should be given a first and important priority. Out of all of the possible measures, I would pick that as being of top priority in terms of effectiveness, being enforceable, creating the least damage to the black South African states and achieving the process of political change.

Mr. Edward Heath: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). I hope that the right hon. Lady realises that in the United States the Rev. Leon Sullivan and his principles have had a big impact on Congress and on American business. That is understandable because Congress represents a large black population in the United States. At the same time, the United States percentage of interests in South Africa is limited, and they have been able to bring about a situation in which Congress has led business initially to suspend further investment and, secondly, to consider complete withdrawal from South Africa.
I do not agree with the right hon. Lady that British firms are unaware of the issues and that they do not feel deeply about them. My experience is that the great majority of British firms in South Africa have done an enormous amount to try to improve conditions, certainly in their own plants. This is certainly true in Namibia, where they have been remarkably successful in removing so many discriminatory practices. Rio Tinto-Zinc has, for example, been able to end the custom whereby black workers return to their own homes for six months and then go back to Namibia. All such families now live and work permanently in Namibia. RTZ has also been able to deal with the problem of the differences in promotion prospects between coloureds, blacks and whites. In so doing RTZ has achieved a considerable amount.

Dame Judith Hart: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right about how many British firms have applied principles similar to those of the Rex. Leon Sullivan. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that RTZ is operating illegally in Namibia.

Mr. Heath: I do not understand the right hon. Lady's point about that company operating illegally in Namibia.

Dame Judith Hart: The United Nations resolution makes it clear that the exploitation of minerals in Namibia is illegal unless done under the control of a popularly elected Government.

Mr. Heath: I realise the import of that resolution passed by the United Nations. I was talking about the worthy efforts made by British firms to remove entirely discrimination in Namibia.
The situation in South Africa is absolutely abhorrent and the British people who see it night after night on their television screens loathe what they see and everything connected with it. The situation is now one of the utmost gravity and time is short. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will realise this when he visits Washington and Pretoria.
At the same time as loathing what it sees in South Africa, the country is also confused and the Government must take responsibility for this. The House is in the same situation tonight. We are debating this most important and complex situation on the basis that Opposition Members are arguing for effective deterrents, and the Government are arguing for "not overall" deterrents. Do "not overall" deterrents exclude effective deterrents? The Government have emphasised that they have already taken eight actions and the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon that some are economic. The denial of oil to South Africa is an economic action as is the denial of dealings in the Krugerrand. However, we are told that there must not be economic sanctions because they are not effective. This confusion is leading to a completely false situation and is, I regret to say, giving the impression that it is only with the greatest reluctance that the Government are considering the situation in South Africa and taking action on it.
I wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary well in his difficult mission. He is right not to be frustrated by attempts to deter him. I hope that he will recognise the need to take effective action and to make it plain that such action will be taken. Therefore, he must deal with the very important point that the South African Government believe that, when it comes to the crunch, whatever and whenever it is, they will always have the support of the American Administration and the British Government, The South African Government are firmly convinced of this because they believe that they can always use the Communist threat as the argument with which to handle Washington and Whitehall. Whenever one reads the speeches—

Mr. Amery: What about Simonstown?

Mr. Heath: I disagree with my right hon. Friend. I think that we always disagreed about this. There was a time when I thought that Simonstown was important in world strategy and East-West relations. It is no longer important. Nor do I believe that South Africa is of any importance in any possible East-West arms clash.
The irony of the situation is that the longer South Africa continues its present policy, the more it drives its black population into Communist hands and the more it is encouraging the other black states in Africa to move towards a Communist outlook. We must deal with this ironic situation. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will impress, not only upon the Secretary of State in Washington but upon the President, whom he is bound to see, that every time it is said that South Africa is a bulwark against Communism, the South African Government's policies on apartheid and the political development of South Africa are reinforced. Until that argument is completely wiped from our minds we shall be unable to make any progress with negotiations.
This progress may come about only after further action on sanctions has been taken. We must get away from the confusion of whether such actions are measures or whether. they are sanctions. The purpose of them all is to persuade the South African Government to change the situation.
A myth has grown up about Rhodesian sanctions. It is not true to say that sanctions had no effect on Rhodesia. They did take a long time, but they had the effect of

inducing Mr. Smith to negotiate with my noble Friend Lord Home, when he was Foreign Secretary, something which Mr. Smith had previously refused to do.

Mr. John Carlisle: indicated dissent

Mr. Heath: It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. He was not here at the time and knows nothing about it. Negotiations did take place, and if Mr. Smith had been prepared to move further and then get the support of the black population in Rhodesia a far better situation would now exist in that country. This is another lesson which I hope can be brought home to the Government in Pretoria.
Another lesson to be learned is that, as a result of Mr. Smith not being prepared to go so far, there was then an internal crisis of revolt. This was, of course, fed from outside the country and that will happen in South Africa, too. The consequences will also be the same. There will be ghastly bloodshed, the Government will be swept away, and the white population will be in a worse situation than if they had developed properly today. I am sure that this is right and I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary nodding his head.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend implied a few moments ago that the sanctions imposed on Rhodesia were wholly responsible for bringing Mr. Smith to the negotiating table. Does he agree that, at that time, the most significant role was played by the South African Prime Minister who was unwilling to see that situation continue on his northern border, and who therefore brought great pressure to bear on Mr. Smith which was far more effective than any sanctions which the United Kingdom was able to impose?

Mr. Heath: It was because of the sanctions imposed on Rhodesia that the South African Prime Minister saw a situation developing which he could no longer tolerate. That is why Mr. Smith agreed to negotiate. It was a combination of both facts.
When will the President of the Republic of South Africa and his Ministers recognise that their country is now in the same situation as was Rhodesia when he told Mr. Smith to negotiate? That is a key question, and I suggest that the Foreign Secretary must bring about a recognition from South Africa that it is now in the same situation as was Rhodesia.
The Commonwealth is in great peril, as is our position with our European allies. In part, that again is due to the Government's emphasis, which appears to be negative, on what they will not do instead of being forthcoming and emphasising what they have already done. They should emphasise that the purpose of the visit is to secure a negotiating position and, if it fails, further action will be discussed and taken.
In saying that further matters will come under consideration, the Foreign Secretary opens up the gravest doubts among everybody as to whether the Government are serious. The Government can say that after consideration they will decide what further action they will take. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary said that it was for consideration. If they say that after consideration they will take further action, that is a positive attitude, and by now the Government must have had time to work out what steps they will take.
I agree that there is a great deal of room for moving along with financial arrangements. If the right hon.


Member for Clydesdale talks to the banks, I think that she will find that very few are prepared to regard South Africa as creditworthy and therefore they are not taking action. But it is possible for the Government to agree to take action about the banks in South Africa. Of course, it is possible for them to agree, as has been suggested, about the withdrawal of consular representation. It is possible for them to take action about airlines which, as has been suggested by the leader of the Social Democratic party, might in some ways be very effective. It may be that we shall have to give notice of when we shall cancel those airline arrangements and do that legally. If that takes time, it is hanging over South Africa that unless it embarks on serious negotiation there will be that interference with its communications.
On trading questions, agriculture is probably the best subject on which to start. Of course, each of those measures will cause hardship to people and one cannot estimate how great that will be. But if we are determined to deal with the problem of South Africa internally, its apartheid and its political position—its democracy or lack of it—it is necessary to recognise the consequences of pursuing such policies.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right lion. Friend talks about the consequences of further economic sanctions and offered to the House the example of soft fruit. Does he not understand that at the moment, because of the limited sanctions that have already been imposed by other countries, including Britain, dole queues are lengthening in eastern Cape and there is now hunger and starvation in that part of Africa? If the measures that he advocates, particularly in relation to soft fruit where the majority of the labour force is black, came into effect, there would be widespread misery in that part of the world. Is he willing to have that on his conscience?

Mr. Heath: And the Government may be changed. Of course I realise what is going on. The main purpose is to get the Government to change their policy or to change the Government. We must be frank about that. That is what the whole question is about. Those who are genuinely concerned about apartheid and the political institutions in South Africa recognise that that is the situation and there is no point in hiding it.
Industrial goods are a more difficult matter to handle. But all these things must be done in conjunction with the Community, the United States and Japan, and, if possible, with as many other countries that are involved as possible. One of the things that worries me most is that Congress will use its powers, the President will be forced to go along with it, and we shall then find ourselves still more isolated unless we too are prepared to take further action in that respect. To be isolated from the United States, in the Community and also in the Commonwealth, is the worst possible situation in which we could find ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) raised the question of those who are already starving. Of course, I know about that. It has been on every television screen, as have the poor whites who are unemployed as well. That is the consequence of having a Government who behave in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What is necessary is to ensure that the neighbouring African states have a full realisation of what is involved in each of the actions that we are taking. That is another of the differences between Rhodesia and South Africa.
During the days of sanctions against Rhodesia, large supplies went through Rhodesia to the African states. They would never admit it and we have never troubled them with that publicly, but it went on. What will happen in this case when the original right of entry is closed? How will they be kept supplied and how will they deal with their trade? Has that been discussed with them? We do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that with them during his recent visit, but it is of crucial importance because they will no longer have the channel of supply, in and out, which they had in those days.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has said that I mentioned a blockade. If one comes finally to having to go for full sanctions, I do not see how they could possibly be enforced without a blockade. Therefore, we should recognise at the beginning that that is what it would come to. If my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North wants to deal with apartheid, as I assume that he dues, and with the political situation there, he must face up to that fact because that is what is required.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East discussed the questions of sanctions being immoral. I do not quite understand the argument about sanctions being immoral.

Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister did.

Mr. Heath: I should hate to think that my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Front Bench who sat in the Cabinet between 1970 and 1974 when we had sanctions against Rhodesia thought that we were indulging in orgies of immorality. That really would grieve me. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary feels that today or felt that then. No, these are measures which one is loath to take, but one must balance the pros and cons.
On trade and industry, 40 per cent. of capital investment in South Africa is British and we are likely to lose that unless we show those who are the majority and who will one day have power that we recognise that fact. A large part of our trade is with South Africa, but we must also recognise that we have twice as much trade with black sub-Saharan Africa as we have with South Africa. If black Africa decides to act against us on this question, our trade with it will suffer far more than our trade with South Africa.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a former Prime Minister, would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on what he sees as the role of the Palace in this situation?

Mr. Heath: I regret that the role of the Queen— let us use the proper terminology in this matter—has been brought into public discussion. The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and in that position she understands fully her responsibilities in a constitutional situation. I have no doubt about that and it is not necessary for anyone to bring the Queen's position into this question.
We shall all regret it if countries leave the Commonwealth. At least, I shall certainly regret it immensely because the Commonwealth still performs a useful function. I regret the withdrawal of countries from the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and members of the Government are the last ones to complain about that. Look at the political pressure that they used in 1981 to


stop our teams going to Moscow after Afghanistan. That was a political question and this is a political question. I saw some of the inside work on that and why the British sailing team did not go, so we had better be a little modest in our attitude towards withdrawals from the Commonwealth games and just regret them and hope that they can be prevented.
This is a grave situation, moving with great rapidity. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will carry out his task with the utmost determination but we must be realistic and appreciate that he may not succeed. We must then be prepared to follow that up with the policies that we are discussing today and I hope that he will be well prepared to do so and can give confidence to the Commonwealth and to Europe that the British Government will play their part in dealing with this increasingly dangerous situation. If that is the fact, we must, as far as possible, try to achieve unity in Britain on what we are going to do.
We lived through 15 years of Rhodesian sanctions and we all saw the disunity that was caused then in some parts of our country and in some parts of the Conservative party in particular over that matter. The last thing that we want is to have a similar argument across the Floor of the House about the measures that we are taking. We should do the utmost we possibly can to reach agreement about this to deal with apartheid and the political institutions in South Africa so as to bring about peaceful change as speedily as we can. The responsibility is on us, Government and Opposition and all Members of the House, to ensure that the country understands the issues and the reasons for the action being taken and that it is as united as possible behind them.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sure that if only the Prime Minister would overcome the resentment that I fear she still harbours and listen to what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has just said she would follow his advice.
The Foreign Secretary had an opportunity this afternoon to undo some of the damage that has been done by Government statements, especially by the Prime Minister's statements, during the past few weeks. I fear that he did not succeed. He might have been able to undo some of the damage if he had confined his speech almost entirely to the sentence which ran:
If my mission were to fail, I would regard agreement on some further measures as likely to be necessary.
That is not the form of words that I would have chosen, and it does not go quite as far as the form of words that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, but if that had been the general signal of his speech, it would have led to a great deal more hope and set at least some minds temporarily at rest around the Commonwealth. It would have given the impression, which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants in his heart to give, that he enters the Commonwealth meeting at the beginning of August determined to take that line.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech had so many deferences and so many obeisances to the views of the Prime Minister that the signal that he might have been giving was hopelessly confused. The right

hon. and learned Gentleman travels about on his flying missions giving the impression increasingly that he is endowed with no more authority than the Queen's Messenger who carries Foreign Office bags from capital to capital or the cabin crew pouring the drinks on the plane. For that to be true of a Foreign Secretary who is universally liked, widely respected and generally thought to have the best interests of the Commonwealth at heart is ludicrous and humiliating. If that proves to be his position at the end of his mission and when the Commonwealth leaders meet at the beginning of August, I hope that he will not allow himself to remain in that posture.
It must be very difficult to give up the office of Foreign Secretary. It is a very noble office, but there is a level of humiliation to which that office ought never to be brought and to which no occupant of it should allow it to be brought. I hope that that will be firmly in the Foreign Secretary's mind in the little time which remains before the meeting of Commonwealth leaders.
It is not the Foreign Secretary who is the problem in all this. While he whispers about possible measures, the Prime Minister screams her defiance. Any signal which the Foreign Secretary gives is wholly overborne by the message that she gives. She has appeared day after day on television screens. She has given long interviews, and her message has been seen and heard in every part of the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. She responds in a seemingly uncontrolled manner, expressing her violent disapproval of sanctions and even of some of the more modest measures that have been discussed today. When the people of the Commonwealth and others see her, they can draw only one conclusion—that she is not prepared to contemplate any measures which she thinks might bear heavily on South Africa.
Standing out of the Prime Minister's interviews is an anger, an emotion and a zeal, one fraction of which, if it appeared to be dedicated to the cause of ending apartheid, might get us somewhere. The Prime Minister's emotion and anger is, however, directed entirely at the measures which the majority of people and countries suggest should be used to deal with apartheid. I have never seen the Prime Minister expending in a television or radio appearance the type of anger and emotion on the issue of apartheid that she expends on the means of which she disapproves. That is what leads me to believe that the proportion is all wrong —her emotional commitment is about the means and not the ends. Whatever views the Prime Minister may hold about the evils of apartheid — I take her at her word when she says that she disapproves of it and wants it to be changed—her emotion is expended not upon those evils but upon the issue of which means are to be used.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Surely my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is entitled to hold vehemently the view, as she does, that if sanctions will produce not the end of apartheid, which we all want, but the destruction of the South African state, they are undesirable.

Mr. Beith: But not one atom of that vehemence is directed against what is happening in South Africa now. I acknowledge that she disapproves of apartheid, but her emotions seem gravely misdirected.
What is the Prime Minister saying about sanctions? She says that she does not believe in general or total sanctions —some of the time because she does not think that they


will work and some of the time because she thinks they will do harm. There is considerable inconsistency between those two views. Half of the time she is implying that the effect of sanctions would be negligible because many countries will not participate, and half of the time she is implying that their effect will be so strong as to harm those parts of the population which we are most anxious to help.
I shall leave that inconsistency aside, however, to consider the more immediate issue, which is that the Prime Minister never allows herself to be questioned on specific sanctions and measures. Every question that she has answered in the House during the past five or six weeks has been answered as if it were a reference to general, total, mandatory sanctions. She has never allowed herself to utter a comment which was clearly and separately addressed to specific measures.
What is the right hon. Lady's motive for doing that? The effect is to give the impression that there are no measures which are likely to be effective which we would contemplate supporting. If she believes that certain measures are damaging, why does she not come out in support of such measures as she thinks will have a more desirable effect or such as she can accept will not have all of the undesirable consequences that she has mentioned in regard to general economic sanctions? Her failure to show support for such measures repeatedly undermines the Foreign Secretary's repeated insistence that some further measures will be considered. What is her attitude to the report of the Eminent Persons Group?

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by adopting that attitude, the Prime Minister devalues in advance those moves which ultimately she will have to make, and therefore gains no credit for herself or Britain?

Mr. Beith: That is absolutely right, and any step that the Prime Minister is forced with obvious reluctance to take at the Commonwealth leaders' conference will seem that much less because of the vehemence with which she has denounced all sanctions hitherto.
The Prime Minister has never given a clear statement on whether she agrees or disagrees with the Eminent Persons Group, about which she has often spoken in general. That group said:
We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it. If it comes to the conclusion that it would always remain protected from such measures, the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase in momentum and the descent into violence would be accelerated. In these circumstances, the cost in lives may have to be counted in millions.
In all of her references to the hunger which she believes would result from general economic sanctions, what is her view of that statement? What is her answer to the EPG, which said:
The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral?
The Prime Minister daily answers, in effect, that she is prepared to stand by and see the cycle of violence spiral.
What is the effect of all this? On the South African regime it is as the EPG says—they think that they are all right. They think that they have a friend in the Prime Minister and praise her lavishly. They believe that she is

their last bastion of defence against economic pressure. That has been said again recently in a radio broadcast, and it is being said with increasing fulsomeness.
What is the effect on the black majority population? They increasingly believe that Britain is their enemy. From their distant point of view, it is hard for them to distinguish between the Prime Minister, who in their eyes represents Britain, and the country as a whole. We know from what is said in the House that the Prime Minister's view is widely contradicted. We know that there is increasing public dissatisfaction at what she is saying. There is now substantial public sympathy for measures against South Africa.
The view from the townships, however, is that Britain is not a friend of the majority population. We have to try to change that. What hope is there for the future if our relations with South Africa—there will be majority rule in South Africa in our lifetime—if we have been seen to crush that state's aspirations year after year? Where is that country to look for support if it has been denied it by us? It will look to those countries most ready to offer it, such as those in eastern Europe or the Communist world which can see a political advantage in gaining the allegiance that might come from such support. What is the alternative to violence if the people see no support coming from us? The Prime Minister is offering nothing to the majority community in South Africa.
What is the effect of all this on the Commonwealth? It is tearing it apart, just as it is tearing the Edinburgh Commonwealth games apart. I was horrified yesterday afternoon that the very mention of the name of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth evoked a loud jeer from Tory Benches. Many of the hon. Members on the Tory Benches this afternoon may not have been there then. The Secretary-General has sought to present the views of Commonwealth countries to the best of his ability, and to present the consensus within the Commonwealth. That a man occupying a civil servant position such as that should be castigated and jeered by Tory Members is an indication of the extraordinary depths to which the Conservative party is sinking in its attitude to the Commonwealth.
Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud): It is not fair of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Secretary-General was jeered. That is not the right word. The Secretary-General was not appointed to be spokesman of the Commonwealth. That is not his job. He has a responsible job and, of course, he is entitled to express his own views on anything. However, he is not entitled to say that he speaks on behalf of the Commonwealth because he does not.

Mr. Beith: It would be extraordinary if the Secretary-General went around the capitals of the Commonwealth stating those views which are in direct contradiction to those reached at recent Commonwealth conferences. All the Secretary-General seeks to do is to voice the views which Commonwealth conferences have agreed upon. He has the evidence of the recent conference at Nassau on which to base those views. Of course, he must take some account of change and developing events in the meantime, as any person in such a position would. It would be an extraordinary Commonwealth Secretary-General who, in these circumstances, chose to pick out the views of the Prime Minister and advance those rather than the views of the Commonwealth leaders who were in a majority at the meeting.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I must make some progress in what I had intended to be a brief contribution.
The Commonwealth is a source of enormous strength to its members. It is a community of political co-operation which crosses the north-south barrier. It is something very precious and we should be striving to maintain it. It also has great trade importance. There are about £7·5 billion worth of imports from the Commonwealth to this country and £8·5 billion worth of exports from this country to the Commonwealth. We should be deeply concerned about its future.
I must say to those Commonwealth leaders who are thinking that they should leave the Commonwealth if it is unable to act coherently and sensibly in this matter that that is not the question that they should be addressing. The question is, what is wrong with the leadership of the Commonwealth if that comes about? We are moving to a position, in the course of these events, where countries other than Britain will be seen to occupy the key leadership position in the Commonwealth, countries such as Canada, India, Australia, and Nigeria. They are closer to the consensus of views within the Commonwealth. It is extraordinary for Britain, with all its historical involvement in the development of the Commonwealth, to put itself in that position.
Far from seeing this as a time for leaving the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth leaders should see the solution to the problem, if they are unable to carry the British Government along with them, in the assertion of leadership from different quarters within the Commonwealth. That would be part of the maturing process of the institution.
The Government should be working on a programme of measures which they would be ready to bring in the moment the Foreign Secretary's mission is completed. We have had enough delay. If the Government go to the August meeting with the intention of another leapfrogging delay saying "We cannot agree on anything because we have to wait for the next European Council of Ministers meeting and if we cannot agree there we must wait for another session of the House and then there will have to be another Commonwealth conference", the whole process could go on for ever. The Government must be looking at measures such as the banning of intercontinental airline flights and of new investment, not because that would have a profound effect in itself, because very little investment is taking place, but because it would be a signal. They must be prepared to look at bans on specific products and attempts to re-enact the rescheduling crisis that faced South Africa recently.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the hon. Gentleman is calling for a ban on new investment in South Africa, will he explain why last week the Liberal party abstained in a vote which would have stopped the tax relief under the personal equity plan of income and capital gains from shares in companies trading in South Africa? Is it not a case of the Liberal party saying one thing and doing another? How does the hon. Gentleman answer the charge of inconsistency?

Mr. Beith: It was an extremely badly worked out proposal. Its effects on companies in Britain could not be so precisely estimated as to distinguish between trading activities in South Africa and trading activities in the rest

of the world. It was a piece of gesture politics. It was not an efficient gesture which could be brought to bear effectively on those companies really trading in South Africa. That was the conclusion we reached. The temptation was to vote against it because it was so badly conceived. However, we did not want to appear to support the Government's general resistance to any kind of measures. It was an attempt to introduce in the context of the Finance Bill a proposal which was not adequately worked out.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Mr. Beith: I must not give way any more because many hon. Members wish to take part.
At the same time as doing all that, we must continue the process of discussion with the front-line states to see that we are ready to assist them, especially over issues such as transport. I give the Foreign Secretary credit for the fact that he has not blunted or stopped that process. It is taking place. It was taking place before he went to Lusaka. With that there must be a commitment that we are prepared to strengthen our assistance. Zimbabwe is deeply involved in seeking to maintain through Mozambique transport routes which are threatened by the direct intervention of South Africa in supporting those who are attacking the routes. It is an irony that the routes which were used to defeat sanctions against Rhodesia are now the routes which may not be open, unless the troops of Zimbabwe can keep them open, to enable sanctions to be carried out.
The British Government must be ready to assist the front-line states. We support the motion and we believe that the signal which should be coming from the House and the country is that we are on the side of the majority community in South Africa in its desire to have democratic rights and in its desire to break down a system which has oppressed the majority for so many years. All those who share that feeling on the Conservative Benches should be ashamed that the speeches of the Prime Minister give the impression that the Government and Conservative party do not share that aspiration. They have only to talk to the leaders of other Commonwealth countries to realise that that is the impression they give. This may be one of our last opportunities to make clear where we stand on this issue.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I utterly and profoundly disagree with the sentiments he has expressed. I regret that Opposition Members — and I include here the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—do not appreciate that in this general debate on South Africa there is much more common ground between us than there is gulf. We share the one objective: to seek to encourage those who can overthrow apartheid to do so, and to create in its place a form of government acceptable to all races. That is the common ground.
I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I detected in his utterances what I would call three fundamental inner flaws. In his absence I address them to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and I hope that he will reply to them when he addresses the House.
The first inner flaw, the point of omission from all of the sincere utterances of Opposition Members—I do not


doubt their sincerity—is the failure to appreciate that there has been significant change in South Africa. That change does not go far enough. I do not think that any of us would say that it does. However, things have happened in South Africa over the past five years which were utterly inconceivable 10 years ago. That acknowledgement is missing from the thesis presented by Opposition Members. Job reservations have gone, the Mixed Marriages Act has gone, influx controls have gone, the tricameral Parliament is established, freehold rights for blacks have been extended and we have a declaration of educational parity for all races. That could not have happened before. Let us hear acknowledgement of those facts in the thesis presented by Opposition Members. Of course it is not enough, but the winds of change are blowing through South Africa.
On the second inner flaw, I find myself, with great regret, quarrelling profoundly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Even if sanctions were to work economically, they would not work politically. If we destroy the economic well-being of the Afrikaner, we will not turn him overnight into a western liberal. The reverse is the reality. If we destroy the economic well-being of the Afrikaner, we shall force him into the inner laager, which means the defeat of the very objective which should unite all hon. Members.
The third inner flaw in the argument presented to us by the Opposition is their failure to account for what I believe to be another fundamental factor. Were South Africa to indulge in counter sanctions, we would be obliged to call off our sanction programme within, say, 12 months. The rest of southern Africa is far more dependent on the wealth and economy of South Africa than South Africa is dependent on her markets in the borderline states and elsewhere in the African continent. We know that 99 per cent. of Lesotho's imports, 91 per cent. of Swaziland's, 88 per cent. of Botswana's and more than 66 per cent. of Zimbabwe's, Zaire's and Zambia's come from South Africa. How can the rest of the world undertake economically to make provision for that which counter sanctions would deny to the rest of southern Africa? I believe that the imposition of sanctions is a non-starter.
Those are the inner flaws in the Opposition's argument. As I have said, I acknowledge the sincerity with which they are advanced. 1 applaud what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been saying in contending that sanctions pre-eminently are unlikely to be effective. It is a horrific reality that some countries and many companies prefer money to morality. Sanctions would not be implemented effectively. That is a pragmatic view and it does not mean necessarily that we should not embark on the course of sanctions, but let us not kid ourselves that they will work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup acknowledges that it would be immigrant workers, the indigent blacks and the front-line states who would suffer from sanctions if they were to be effective. I am not prepared to shoulder that moral burden. If they want sanctions, they can apply them themselves. The immigrant black workers can get out of South Africa. The indigenous blacks can withdraw demand and labour, and the frontline states can withdraw their demand. They do not do so and they ask us to do it for them.
I welcome the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and that of my right hon. and learned

Friend the Foreign Secretary to treat with disdain and cynicism the meaningless talk of democracy and one man, one vote within South Africa. Where in the rest of the African continent is the example? Where is the paradigm of virtue and the respecter of minorities that we can point to and enable us to say to South Africa, "Follow that lead"? We know what the answer is: absolutely nowhere.
I want genuinely to know the answer to another question. If we have a President of Tanzania who says that he does not believe in democracy, Westminster style, arid if we have a President of Zimbabwe who says that he does not believe in Western-style democracy, why should a President of South Africa believe in Westminster-style democracy?

Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on the fact that no black African Government have ever been changed by the ballot box.

Mr. Hunter: I accept that entirely. I do not have my hon. Friend's experience or knowledge of African affairs and I welcome his intervention and do not challenge him.
The Commonwealth dimension now enters the debate. We must be on our guard. The Commonwealth is not ours. It is not a confederation of former colonies over which we preside. It is a brotherhood of independent nations which are equal members. Likewise, the Commonwealth games are not ours. We are inviting other Commonwealth countries to come to Edinburgh to participate in various athletic pastimes. It would be tragic if the Commonwealth were to suffer grievously as a result of the stance that is now being taken by certain Commonwealth Governments, but I will not be bullied or browbeaten into doing what I know to be wrong to preserve a mistaken concept and understanding of the Commonwealth.
There are at work in South Africa forces of evolution, not revolution. The object of our diplomacy should be to identify and encourage those forces of evolution. I am talking about the body of white thinking which is far in advance of the South African Government and that body of black thinking which does not want the way of violence and revolution. I applaud and support the stand which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have taken. I hope most sincerely that they will not be deflected from the course of truth.

Mr. Guy Barnett: There was a considerable contrast between the speech of the Foreign Secretary and that of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Peppered throughout the Foreign Secretary's speech were phrases such as "further measures are not excluded", "we shall consider further measures" or "there is no automaticity", the last word being a new one for me. Everything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was qualified and conditional.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, time is short and we are in great peril. Time is short, as the Eminent Persons Group made clear in South Africa. If something does not happen very soon—this can never be said too often to those such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—there will be a bloodbath in South Africa. If something s not done to change the Government's policies very soon, the Commonwealth will break up. The consequences of a failure on the


Government's part to do something practical and positive are likely to stretch far beyond South Africa and far beyond Britain. That failure so to act will have profound consequences for the world. That is why I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that time is short and that we are in great peril. We are expecting from the Government a greater sense of urgency and a larger measure of commitment than was apparent from the Foreign Secretary's speech.
I have mentioned the Commonwealth and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I was sorry when it was said that the Commonwealth still had a role to play, or still was an asset. I take a different view. I believe that the Commonwealth should have a growing role in the world in future, and I believe that it will. It has already played a vital part. I do not think that the Commonwealth has ever received the credit that it deserves for the settlement of the Rhodesian issue. It played a far larger part than most hon. Members are prepared to accept or admit. I have in mind the part played by Malcolm Fraser of Australia, Michael Manley of Jamaica, Julius Nyerere and other leading statesmen of the Commonwealth at the time, including our then Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington. I believe that the part which the Commonwealth played was crucial and was a major success.
The report of the Eminent Persons Group is another major achievement of the Commonwealth. It can be too easily dismissed by hon. Members—most of them are on the Government Benches—who are inclined to say, "We can forget about the Commonwealth. It has no further relevance as far as we are concerned. We are part of Europe." I do not accept that view, for several reasons. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly pointed out, the Commonwealth is a vital organisation. In world affairs it is unique because it brings together some of the richest and poorest countries. It brings within its compass nations facing enormous problems of poverty, economic development and debt. It is also the only organisation that encompasses practically every racial group in the world.
It is interesting that practically every country in the Commonwealth has a racial or tribal problem to contend with. Only recently we noticed the tragic position in Sri Lanka and the Sikh problem in India. Leaders in east Africa are trying to sort out the almost intractable problems which they inherited from Britain when we formed those countries with little or no regard to racial groups.
If the hon. Member for Basingstoke is asking for a two-party democracy in east Africa, he is crying for the moon. Those countries have a terrible job trying to build a nation from their inheritance. If he wants an example of a democracy in Africa, I can give him one. I visited a democracy in February: Botswana is a two-party democracy with a remarkable measure of freedom and a great regard for the political system inherited from the United Kingdom. To criticise Commonwealth countries only a quarter of a century after they gained their independence with all the problems which they must face is absurd, especially when one recognises that this country evolved towards democracy over many years.

Mr. John Carlisle: The same rules apply.

Mr. Barnett: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt or merely to shout, but clearly he has something to say.

Mr. Carlisle: Do not exactly the same rules and conditions apply to South Africa as those which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently described in relation to east Africa? Can he not accept that the South African people will not move towards one man, one vote precisly because of what has happened in other Commonwealth countries and the problems which they face?

Mr. Barnett: I do not think that that is true. African Governments have tried to move to one man, one vote. It is inadequate to argue that there has never been a change of Government because the system of democracy adopted by many Commonwealth countries has led to Ministers losing their constituency seats. Therefore, an important form of democracy is being worked out. In some ways it is influenced by African traditions of democracy which those countries are right to attempt to follow rather than slavishly following the two-party Westminster model. Something exciting and important can come from that.
The Commonwealth is an institution which brings together a great variety of races in different countries. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was a member of the Brandt Commission and he will recognise the important contribution made to it by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He will also recognise, as most hon. Members do, that the Commonwealth still has a major contribution to make on that issue because it contains so many rich and poor nations. It has published a number of documents and statements which are significant and valuable to the international debate about how we can solve the problems identified by the Brandt Commission. I would be desperately sorry to see the Commonwealth break up, but we are in great peril of that.
The situation in South Africa is also frightening. Yesterday afternoon some of us were privileged to listen to a talk given to the British-Zimbabwe parliamentary group by the Speaker of the Zimbabwe Parliament, Didymus Mustasa. He spoke movingly about how Zimbabwe, its President, Prime Minister and Government want to retain the closest possible relationship with the United Kingdom, and many points he made have been confirmed in this debate. We do a great deal of mutual trade, and many relationships exist which we hope will continue to exist. Many members of the Zimbabwe Government were educated at British universities, which underlines the importance of extending opportunity to Africans and other members of the Commonwealth to study at our universities. But Speaker Mustasa said that the behaviour of successive British Governments has been such as to drive Zimbabwe into the arms of the Russians. Those are almost his words.
Zimbabwe was unable to get any assistance from us when Didymus Mustasa was in the bush among the freedom fighters. How much assistance did he get from British Governments when he was fighting for the independence of his country? He got some assistance from my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) who ensured that every refugee from the Smith regime could obtain education here, and we are reaping some of the benefit from that now. But how much assistance did we give those people? How much assistance


are we now giving the African National Congress? How much assistance could we give, given all the talk of the hon. Member for Basingstoke and others about the plight of the front-line states and about how terrible it would be for them if we applied sanctions against South Africa? How much assistance are we prepared to give? That is the key question.

Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend probably knows that the Government have just announced that they will offer an additional £15 million over five years to southern Africa. He may like to put that in the context of the £400 million a year which is being spent on the Falklands.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that staggering comparison. [Laughter.] The laughter of Conservative Members demonstrates that there is little sympathy or interest from a certain section of the Conservative party. Their words and jeers are not worth listening to. It was interesting to note the flak that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) received from a certain section of the Conservative party. Frankly, it could not care less about the needs of some of the front-line states and the problems which they face as a consequence of the murderous attacks made on them and the attempts to destabilise their regimes. The £15 million is peanuts, considering the problems which those states face.
We should think seriously about assisting those countries by providing military equipment and, if necessary, soldiers to enable them to defend their borders, especially the Beira corridor, so that they can have a trade link separate and independent from South Africa. That would protect them to some degree from the type of consequences which have already arisen but which will inevitably arise increasingly when economic sanctions are applied. We should not pay attention to the crocodile tears of Conservative Members.

Sir John Page: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished and long-serving member of the Labour party. Is his view that, if necessary, British troops should go into the borderline states to maintain sanctions part of Labour party policy? Perhaps he will expand on that because it is an important aspect which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

Mr. Barnett: When my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) replies officially for the Labour party, I hope that he can give the hon. Gentleman the firm official answer that he requires. That is certainly something which I have been pressing in the House for some time and it would make an important contribution. The hon. Gentleman may already know that the British Army makes a valuable contribution in Zimbabwe by training the Zimbabwe army, and that there are already British troops in Zimbabwe. Therefore, it would be a natural extension for Britain at least to send equipment or to give other forms of military assistance to enable those defenceless countries to defend themselves against the attacks that they have received from the south.
I do not want to detain the House much longer, but I feel that I should underline the points that I have made —that I agree strongly with the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup; that we are in peril; that time is short; and that decisions must be taken. I hope

that the House listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale said about sanctions. Much more debate needs to take place in this House, and I think that my right hon. Friend's speech was one of the more constructive in the debate so far. Basically, my right hon. Friend said that there was no point in the absurd argument about whether measures were or were not effective. We should decide what effective measures could be taken, judge which were likely to have the desired effect —the effect that I hope every hon. Member wants—and recognise that this is not cheap debate, but an issue of deep concern to everyone in the African continent. It must be of deep concern to everyone in the world.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I wish first to anticipate possible interventions in my speech. The last time that I spoke on this issue several remarks were directed across the Benches to the effect that I had business interests in South Africa. I have none and have never had any. Perhaps that statement will save at least one intervention in my speech.
I shall barely comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) because it wandered into the realms of fantasy. As he represents a party that constantly votes against Defence Estimates because it believes that we are spending too much on the armed forces, it was rather odd that he should contemplate sending expeditionary armies to half a dozen countries on the African continent, and maintain them there to repel hypothetical attacks from South Africa. His speech, I repeat, took the debate temporarily into the realms of fantasy.
I have almost the same view of an earlier suggestion that, if necessary, we should enforce a boycott. Contrary to the comment of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, I was in the House at the time of Rhodesian sanctions and witnessed their effect. Even that limited boycott was a grotesque and unsuccessful farce. We had an aircraft carrier steadily rusting away and one or two auxiliary ships cruising steadily outside Lourenco Marques but Rhodesia's trade continued to go through both South Africa and the port of Beira in Portuguese south Africa. Eventually, the aging vessel was withdrawn. before perhaps it sank to the bottom of the ocean. I shall return to Rhodesian sanctions later as an example of what could or could not happen in South Africa.
My first visit to South Africa was in 1947. I spent some time both in South Africa itself and in what was then Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. I have three distinct recollections of that time, and I have regarded them constantly as valid right up to the present day—despite many frequent subsequent visits during which, at universities and other institutions, I have to the best of my ability warned about the inevitable consequences of apartheid, unless changes were made while there was still an atmosphere of moderation in which to make them. On one occasion, surprising as this may be to Opposition Members, my remarks were quoted as proving that. I must be the only Communist in the British Conservative party — a label not usually attached to me. Therefore, my conscience is clear on my attitude of trying to induce people to change their minds before change became brutally and cruelly inevitable.
The first of my three recollections is that, having travelled throughout South Africa, this House made the


fatal mistake — as did most European and other countries — of not recognising that South Africa has evolved not as a country but as a continent comprising a whole series of peoples—black, white and other shades —who are just as different one from the other as the peoples of the continent of Europe. If one day we could understand that and take a different approach, we might help to create some form of satisfactory Government within the context of that multiracial continent. We might then, in this House and elsewhere, begin to talk sense.
The idea that there is a greater community between the Asian living in Durban, a Cape coloured, some of the black African tribes, the Afrikaner or the rural members of the so-called homelands and the Zulu is the same as saying that there is no difference between people living in Spain, in Sweden or in Greece. It is utter rubbish. If people visited South Africa not on a carefully arranged propaganda trip but to learn about the people, they would understand that we are trying to deal with a continental problem with fundamental racial differences.
My second recollection is of the certainty of the doom of apartheid. I saw it coming as long ago as 1947. As a young man, I thought that apartheid was an immoral concept. However, unfortunately plenty of immoral concepts and immoral states continue to survive. The Foreign Minister of one such state visited this country within the last few days. That country—the USSR—has survived on a wholly immoral basis since the Communists first gained power. However, a country can have an immoral totalitarian system provided that it is totalitarian.
What doomed the South Africans to the crisis that has now arisen was that they tried to have the best of both worlds. They tried to educate and provide a better standard of living—and therefore being bound in the process to foster greater aspirations — for the very people whom they would inevitably dominate if their system of apartheid could continue. The sowed the seeds of their own destruction long before the Commonwealth, the United Nations or anyone else got round to it. How could they have thought that they could send black people to educational institutions to gain a higher degree of education, to train to a high level to work in industry, and thereby to obtain a standard of living higher than any obtainable elsewhere in Africa without realising that they could not prevent the emergence of political aspirations? That is why apartheid was doomed from the start. It was based not only on immorality but on total unfeasibility in the long term. Indeed, I am surprised that it has taken 40 years for them to begin to understand that. In 1947 I bet £100—and I am not a gambling man—that apartheid would end within 20 years. Unfortunately, I was 20 years out and so lost my £100—yet my concept of what would happen has turned out to be correct.
The third and perhaps the most important of my recollections is that no one in the House should underrate the built-in obstinacy of the Afrikans. Once again, we made a fatal mistake at the end of the last century when it took the whole might of the then British empire to bring the Afrikaners to their knees. It took three whole years before they would give way. If we think that stopping Krugerrands coming into this country or imposing any of the other suggested sanctions can be done without carrying the Afrikaners with us—and I am not talking about the ridiculous suggested boycott with non-existent

ships cruising up and down—we are wholly wrong. On the other hand, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend can carry Afrikaner Ministers with us, because they will listen to reason provided that we do not force them publicly to denounce themselves. If we did that, that Government would fall and another even more extreme Afrikaner Government would emerge. If we say, "If you do not do this and this, we will do that and that," we shall not succeed. If anyone thinks that that is the way to handle an Afrikaner, it is time that he paid a visit to that part of the world.
It is, therefore, time to begin looking at reality, and I therefore wish now to discuss the present position. When we talk about sanctions and measures, I wish that we could return to real history and not the rewriting of it. In the 1930s, people launched into a high moral code about sanctions to prevent Italy from conquering Abyssinia. That is never quoted, because it is inconvenient to remember that the only result was that Italy took Abyssinia more brutally than it should have done. She used mustard gas instead of more conventional means quickly to achieve her objectives.
The Rhodesian sanctions have been mentioned several times. It is not true to say that sanctions of themselves brought down the Rhodesian Government. That is selectively to rewrite history, which we do too much to suit certain individuals. I visited Rhodesia at the height of the sanctions period. For the first time in their history, the Rhodesians had had to bring in car parking regulationns for Salisbury because there were more cars on the roads than ever before. Half of the vehicles came from France and the other half came from Japan. Yet both of those countries were subscribers to the sanctions exercise.
What happened in Rhodesia—let us state the facts and not what we would like it to be — was that the Portuguese empire collapsed and the roads to the coast through Beira and Lourenco Marques were blocked. Rhodesia had no seaport and the only route remaining was through South Africa. The South African Government forced the Rhodesian Government to give way on the propositions put forward by Lord Carrington and others, because the South African Government were not prepared to carry alone the flak for Rhodesia being able to survive against world opinion in case the flak was then directed at them. It was a statesmanlike measure from their point of view to try to induce the Rhodesians to give way. However, that is history. Certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and others, do not like history. What I have said can be easily proved.

Mr. Heath: I do not know whether or not my hon. Friend is referring to my speech, but the fact is that they brought Mr. Smith to negotiate with Sir Alec Douglas-Home. That is a matter of fact.

Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. Friend has already reproved several of our hon. Friends because they were not MPs at the time and did not know what they were talking about. I hesitate to say the same thing to my right hon. Friend, because he was here and did know all about it. Yet he must accept my opinion that it was not sanctions—they had gone on for 15 years—that brought Rhodesia to the negotiating table. It was the collapse of the Portuguese empire, as I have said, and the fact that the South African Government was left with the sole


responsibility. which it was not prepared to take, to keep Rhodesia going. That is how I and most of my colleagues see the facts. Certainly, the history books do so.
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, there was an outcry about sanctions. It was said that if we operated sanctions against the Soviet Union, and if the Americans led the way by withdrawing wheat supplies, Russia would be forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. She is still there and she is still killing people. The Americans have found that their wheat ban had no result, because Russia was able to get its wheat from other sources. The pathetic attempt to induce change in Afghanistan by way of sanctions has been shown for what it is.
I have visited the Library and I have checked on the United Nations records. The biggest breaker of sanctions against Rhodesia, including France and Japan, was the Soviet Union. No one has mentioned that in today's debate. We have talked about getting the consent of the Americans. What better understanding can we have than what the Russians would do if we exercised sanctions against South Africa? If the Russians were to do what they did in the case of Rhodesia, sanctions would become a dangerous farce.
If the sanctions are ineffective and are only an irritant, they will do nothing but strengthen the South African Government who will then say, "We can go on as we have always done, because whatever the West does, it is not effective. We can continue unchanged." If the sanctions are effective in the only sense that they can be, they would cause large scale unemployment. They would cause intense misery to the very population we are trying to help, according to the precepts on the Opposition Benches.
No one has mentioned today the estimates that have been given that if the comprehensive, mandatory and immediate sanctions which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) espouses were implemented, up to a quarter of a million job losses could occur in this country. Will the Opposition include that in their programme?

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall not give way.

Mr. Barnett: Twenty thousand.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Let the hon. Gentleman then tell the people in his constituency that he is willing to advocate even the loss of 20,000 jobs there. I prefer the figure that has been provided from other sources that up to a quarter of a million job losses may occur. If hon. Members will not admit that, it shows that they are not prepared to admit the consequences of what they seek.
One of the factors that does not help us to get a receptive hearing in South Africa is that South Africa thinks that the world is ideologically prejudiced and biased against its Government, and, of course, its white inhabitants. I have received a number of letters pointing out that this is the 10th anniversary of Soweto and, therefore, it is an occasion for special feelings. Yet I have not noticed many motions on the Order Paper pointing out that it is the 25th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Hungary when 20,000 Hungarians were killed. Why do we not have motions calling attention to that anniversary 25 years later?
Twenty years ago the Berlin wall was built. I wonder why we have not had a series of demands from the Opposition for a debate to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Berlin wall.
The acts of hypocrisy in which members of the media and hon. Members indulge, when we are trying desperately to send the Foreign Secretary on his way with a real prospect of trying to get a negotiated settlement, makes his task all the more difficult.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) referred to the loss of a quarter of a million jobs. The Prime Minister has referred in the House to, I think, 120,000 job losses. The Foreign Office has brought the figure down to 50,000. Two independent reports, to which I referred in the House a few weeks ago, cited a figure of between 12,000 and 20,000. To talk about a quarter of a million job losses can only have come from a leak from the South African embassy.
I shall refer to how the feelings in this country are manifesting themselves. I am a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I am privileged to be on the national executive committee of that movement. Two weeks ago, we had a demonstration and a festival in the streets of London. Many pop stars participated, free of charge. More than 200,000 people—some say that the figure was 250,000—participated at one time or another during that day of events. It was probably one of the biggest demonstrations on an international issue in the United Kingdom for over a quarter of a century.
All types and classes of people attended the demonstration — blacks, whites and coloureds. The Christian Church was well represented, as were many political parties. That manifestation on the streets of London showed to some extent the feeling in the United Kingdom. The Anti-Apartheid Movement has hundreds of branches in this country. Through those branches, the movement is implementing the people's sanctions, the people's boycott of South Africa, which is having an effect. The membership of the movement increases daily.
A recent opinion poll showed that the British people, rather than being hostile to sanctions—the debate is at a level where people are becoming involved — are in support of sanctions against South Africa. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister came out of that poll rather badly. She was perceived by the British public as a supporter of P. W. Botha and of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Not only has the Prime Minister brought the British Government into disrepute in the international arena but we are discredited. Because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) clearly outlined that issue, I shall not go into the details. It is a sorry and serious matter when a British Prime Minister is regarded in that manner by the international community. That can do untold damage in the short and the long term.
In October 1985, at Nassau, an agreement was made to apply, in the Prime Minister's words, "teeny weeny" sanctions. The other members of that conference, because of their sincerity, took on trust the Prime Minister's argument that the Eminent Persons Group should go to South Africa. Some of us condemned that proposal at that time but, nevertheless, it went ahead.
In October 1985, at Nassau, a motion was tabled on the agenda, and was subsequently included in the accord


released after the meeting, that eight further measures against South Africa should seriously be considered if the EPG did not make progress in bringing about change in South Africa.
There has been a change of mind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that he had changed his mind from supporting bringing in progressive sanctions to supporting the imposition immediately of fairly strict sanctions.
What will Heads of Government consider in London on 3, 4, 5 August?


"(a) a ban on air links with South Africa;
(b) a ban on new investment or reinvestment of profits earned in South Africa;
(c) a ban on the imports of agricultural products from South Africa;
(d) the termination of double taxation agreements with South Africa;
(e) the termination of all government assistance to investment in, and trade with, South Africa;
(f) a ban on all government procurement in South Africa;
(g) a ban on government contracts with majority-owned South African companies;
(h) a ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa."

They are not major sanctions, or not as we would interpret them. They are minimum sanctions which we should seriously consider. I should be pleased if the Minister will tell us how far the Government are prepared to go.
The penultimate paragraph in the conclusion of the EPG report, which was unanimously agreed, stated:
The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change, it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective kind? Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War.
Those strong words ask for the minimum sanctions which will be discussed on 3, 4, and 5 August. Those questions should be answered by the Minister of State.
Invariably, I come in at the fag end of debates on South Africa, so I should like to speak for just two more minutes. Reference has been made to the support of £15 million. In the past two or three weeks, I have written to 34 British multinationals. Because of the national service agreement in South Africa, British multinationals with subsidiaries in South Africa are subsidising the military. Following two years of conscription, the wages of those who go for further training with the military are topped up by the British multinationals. I have heard from reliable sources in South Africa that employees of European multinationals, who are paid and subsidised by their companies, have been seen on the backs of wagons used in the so-called "control" of the streets of South Africa but, in fact, have been shooting blacks. The sum of £15 million is being sent to South Africa through British multinationals subsidising the military. These multinationals are also topping up their employees' wages. That is nothing less than scandalous. I hope that multinational companies will play their part in stopping this type of subsidy to the military.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has given me two minutes to speak, although I hope that he does not time me closely.
The House should be deciding precisely how we can take measures that will generally change the position and free the blacks in South Africa. It is easy to posture and make grandiose statements about so-called sanctions which we should take while knowing full well that we shall sleep easily in our beds and nothing will happen.
I have been to South Africa—not on a Government-sponsored tour but on an independent tour. My group had the opportunity to meet people such as Bishop Tutu, Buthelezi, Allan Boesak and various Ministers. Right hon. and hon. Members would be foolish if they believed for one moment that they could bounce the Afrikaner Government into doing anything that they did not want to do. We cannot do that. That is why it is right that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary should at least try to do what he can.
The only group that can facilitate change in South Africa is big business. Those people have economic muscle. About 20 years ago, they abolished apartheid in their own enterprises. Mr. Botha, the state President, is faced with a divided Cabinet—on the one hand, there is Mr. Pik Botha, who is after the state President's job, and, on the other, there are people who are against the so-called "reforms" which Mr. Botha says he wants to introduce. I sincerely believe that, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary fails in the next few days in Pretoria, the British Government will have to put forward positive measures which will send a signal of disapproval and which we hope will be effective. We must not for one moment fool ourselves into thinking that such measures will bounce the thoroughly wicked Government in Pretoria into changing their position one iota.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The quick answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) is that the South African Government can bask in their defiance because they know that, ultimately, they can rely on the British Government's support. So long as they labour under that belief, they will refuse to make the necessary moves.
Apparently, the Foreign Secretary has moved a little from the Prime Minister's intransigence. One can interpret the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points, with all their qualifications, as meaning, "If there is no tangible progress towards securing the objectives, some further measures, in my view, are likely to be necessary."
What is the Foreign Secretary's definition of "progress"? He has set as his task that of convincing the South African Government that Nelson Mandela and the other imprisoned leaders should be unconditionally released and the major parties should no longer be banned. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be content to take the South African Government's word about a release at some future time, or will he make the release of Nelson Mandela a certain aim without which he will give a commitment to the House to embark on these "further measures"? So far the Foreign Secretary has been coy about that point.
The Foreign Secretary knows from his dealings with the South African Government that they will try to play for time and present some sort of agreement which is full of loopholes. He knows, for example, the long delays over the independence of Namibia from Security Council resolution 435 of 1978. If he wants further examples of the duplicity of the South African Government, let him look


at those secret missives in relation to Mozambique, in spite of the Nkomati accord, which the South African Government signed in good faith with Mozambique. If he wishes to come closer to home, let him look at the Coventry Four. Four self-confessed representatives of the Armscor were indicted in this country. The first secretary of the South African Government, Mr. Pelzer, went to a High Court judge and pledged the full faith of the South African Government that they would return those four to this country for trial if they were allowed bail to return to South Africa. They returned to South Africa and then, of course, they said that they would not return to this country.
In the light of those clear examples of South African duplicity, will the Foreign Secretary accept something less than the release of Nelson Mandela before he embarks upon further measures or sanctions, call them what one will? Our fear is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, decent man as he is, will return from his lonely odyssey brandishing a piece of paper saying, "Peace in our time." That would be greeted with derision in the world, and by the EEC and certainly by the Commonwealth.
Recently, the Prime Minister said that it was a pity that South Africa was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. Might it not be that her motive for saying that was that she was seeking to find at least one friend in the Commonwealth? The South African Broadcasting Corporation commended the Prime Minister for standing up against the mob. Does it thrill the Foreign Secretary as he embarks on his own safari that she has only the commendation of the state South African Broadcasting Corporation?
It is difficult to see how any reasonable individuals can dissent from these elements in the Opposition motion. Who can deny that there is a constitutional crisis looming, and that the Commonwealth is in danger of breaking up unless there are major moves on the part of the Government? Who can deny, after the failure of the Eminent Persons Group, that there is a danger of change being deferred yet again unless sanctions are imposed? Most sensible Members accept that. We believe that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State accept that effective sanctions will have to be imposed. Without them, who can deny that inevitably there will be a bloodbath in southern Africa which will make as naught all our nice calculations about the effect on jobs and on British investments? If that bloodbath comes about, it will sweep aside all our trade and investments in that country.
Since our previous debate, the Foreign Secretary has embarked on his safari. We wish him well. We know that he is a decent individual. But we also know that he is battling against the odds. Hardly had he embarked on the aeroplane before he read Hugo Young's interview with the Prime Minister. Poor Seigfried had no more cruel a stab in the back than the one that the Prime Minister delivered to the Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister repeated the theme of her concern for the blacks. In effect, she said that she knew their interests better than they do. She repeated her concern for morality, which comes ill from someone who has shown no clear appreciation of the desperate position and repression of the blacks within South Africa.
I take no pleasure in saying this. The Foreign Secretary must know it, and the Prime Minister, too, because she has been told by our own diplomatic missions overseas. Rightly or wrongly, the perception of the Prime Minister among the majority of black leaders is that she is not on

their side, that she is fundamentally opposed to their aspirations. She is just not believed when she says that she is against apartheid. Anyone with foresight must realise that the writing is on the wall for white minority government in South Africa. It is wrong for this country to be so closely identified with the old regime in South Africa, and so mistrusted by the emerging forces within that country. Might it not be a good thing for Britain if we were to give some signals of appreciation and sympathy for those emerging forces within South Africa?
Is the Prime Minister preparing for a famous victory, a deal under which Pretoria will promise to dismantle apartheid at some stage in the future, with many qualifications? Will she continue to give President Botha the benefit of every doubt? Is she prepared to ignore the possibility of the Commonwealth breaking up on the rock of her own intransigence in this matter? That has set her apart not only from the Foreign Office and the Ministers in it, but from the sensible majority of her own party.
The Prime Minister may feel passionately on this subject. Can she at least spare a thought for the passion of the families of the thousands of blacks who have been killed in South Africa over the past 18 months? Can she spare a thought for the wives and families of the 4,000 or more blacks and others who have been detained in South Africa, and for those, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and I saw, at the Delmas treason trial of 22 leading blacks who in any sensible country would be playing a leading part in their own Government? Can the Prime Minister at least spare sonic of that passion for them or for the wives and families of those who do not know what has happened to their dear ones in South Africa or, indeed, to the blacks and others who are forced to flee their country because of the repression? I say to the Prime Minister that passion in the defence of vice is no virtue.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): This short debate is vital to us all. It is vital that the Commonwealth continues to be that important channel of dialogue and debate among countries across the world, regardless of colour or creed. I should like to repeat to the House something that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only a few day ago, on 11 July:
The major objectives of our membership of the Commonwealth remain:

(i) the maintenance and reinforcement of the continuing strong links at all levels between member states and their peoples;
(ii) continued support for the Commonwealth as an organisation which can play a constructive and stabilising role in world affairs, notably in promoting democratic principles, international understanding and world peace;
(iii) the development of the association as a unique channel for encouraging co-operation and understanding between the industrialised and developing countries;
(iv) the maximisation of the political and economic benefits of our Commonwealth membership. [Official Report, 11 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 279–80.]

We are told that the Commonwealth is under threat. The Commonwealth has survived many crises. Its unity and strength are based on the very many things that unite us. There are more things that unite than divide us. Those bonds remain and will continue to remain. In the Commonwealth, we are at one in our wish to


see an end to apartheid and a rapid and fundamental change in South Africa, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is working so hard. I do not believe that differences of opinion, which are about means, not ends, can undermine Commonwealth unity. The Commonwealth is too strong for that.
The differences that exist will be discussed fully when the Commonwealth leaders meet next month. I am convinced that they can and will resolve the problems before us in the ways that they will decide. We want the Commonwealth to remain an effective force not only in promoting a solution to the present crisis in South Africa but in every sphere in which its influence is felt and is much needed across this very dangerous world of ours.
That bring me to the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend's mission. The House must remember that the Eminent Persons Group emphasised that the alternative to genuine negotiated settlement in South Africa is chaos, bloodshed and destruction. Faced with that alternative, which we all abhor, I hope that the House will agree that the Governments of the Twelve were not just right but absolutely right in wishing to make every possible effort to break the deadlock and to open the way to negotiations and the suspension of violence. That is a formidable task, requiring great patience and perseverance. On the first leg of this mission, which my right hon. and learned Friend found so valuable in establishing a closer understanding of the issues, we naturally met differences of opinion, but that will always be so. It cannot be right, however, for people in the House to talk down the mission for purely party political reasons. They should seriously ask themselves whether that in any way serves the cause of peaceful change that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to achieve.
In today's debate, as expected, there have been comments about divisions and differences, but in the Government there is strength and unity of commitment to do all that we can to bring a speedy end to apartheid and a change to a non-racial, democratic system of government in South Africa. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear so many times, we utterly abhor apartheid and we are totally committed to finding the most effective way to achieve the changes that we all want. It is in the achievement of that end that our paths diverge—I think that the House is agreed about the ends. It is in the light of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group report, the work agreed to be reviewed at the August conference and the decisions taken by our European partners on 27 June, that we must examine in detail what might need to be done.
We are still at an early stage. My right hon. and learned Friend has just completed the first leg of what may be a long, very detailed and very intense series of visits. It is absolutely clear that if, at the end of those consultations with the leaders of the Economic Seven, the Commonwealth and the European Community we can reach decisions with the unanimous backing of the European Council, 320 million European people and also the Commonwealth, that will be the way to bring about effective change in South Africa. Without that weight of world opinion and the effective commitment of all those countries to achieve that change, we shall not succeed and

people will seek to avoid sanctions for their own selfish purposes. No one in the House or in the country would want that.
We should be looking forward, not underestimating the difficulties, but convinced that talking to the leaders of the economic giants of the world, to the leaders of the Commonwealth and to all who should be involved in the dialogue that we seek to achieve in South Africa is the way ahead and we are determined to carry that process through to the very best outcome that we can achieve.
The Eminent Persons Group report has been quoted. We said in that report that we should promote dialogue in South Africa and the suspension of violence on all sides. We all wish those objectives to be achieved. That is fully accepted, but it is a decision that Heads of Government will be taking in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Healey: The Minister referred approvingly to the Eminent Persons Group. Indeed, she described it as her own report when she said -We said in that report". But the report stated that the failure of the British Government and other Governments so far to impose sanctions had deferred change. The report said that sanctions were necessary to produce change—that is also the view of many Conservatives, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) — so will the Minister make it clear that when she says that sanctions will not work without everyone's agreement the Foreign Secretary's purpose is to achieve agreement on sanctions? Otherwise, she is deceiving the House.

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is up to his usual tricks, so eminently displayed in his opening speech. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in all his efforts in southern Africa, is seeking to find a way forward and to persuade the South African Government that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other detainees, the unbanning of the ANC and other political groups and the end of the state of emergency should be achieved in very good time. Otherwise, the matters now being considered by European and Commonwealth leaders and the leaders of the Economic Seven will have to be further considered and a decision arrived at.
A decision that will be effective in bringing about an end to apartheid must be workable. The right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) put her finger on it when she talked about effective measures and the effect that certain financial decisions already taken have had. Whether they can be pushed further is being discussed and will be further discussed and will no doubt be discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend in Washington on Friday. It is important that there be unified backing for the efforts being made from both European Community and Commonwealth, that we do not concentrate on the views of extremists and that we move to the very thing that we have been seeking—the end of apartheid.
It is impossible to say exactly what could be done and how it could be done in terms of any measures that might have to be considered, but I remind the House of the importance of the positive measures that we are already taking. In addition to the £22 million that we are already giving to the states of southern Africa and to black people in South Africa, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced an additional sum of £15 million for education and training for non-white South Africans.

Mr. Anderson: It is spread over five years, so it is only £3 million per year.

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, but £3 million for transport projects in the front-line states is of major importance, as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) recognised. Those measures will do more to develop the way in which the front-line states and others diversify their markets —something that we have already been working on and shall continue to encourage.
None of the measures being discussed is finite. They have not been decided. We are negotiating with all the leaders whom my right hon. and learned Friend is meeting and seeking to meet to find the best chance of success. We are not committed to or against any of the measures that have been mentioned. My right hon. and learned Friend is engaged on a mission to try to achieve the very progress that all Members of the House claim to wish to achieve —an end to apartheid, the unbanning of the ANC and other groups and the unconditional release of Mandela as well as the lifting of the state of emergency. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, if his mission cannot achieve that, he would regard agreement on further measures as being likely to be necessary. This is of vital importance for the mission that is going on, and we should remind ourselves that without those efforts we have no chance of persuading the South African Government to move further down the path on which they have started in recent years. The right hon. Member for Clydesdale is absolutely right—

Mr. James Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mrs. Chalker: I wish my right hon. and learned Friend every success in his mission. and I am sure that the whole House joins me in that, and will accept the Government's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divide: Ayes 204, Noes 319.

Division No. 261]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Guy
Clarke, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Robert


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clelland, David Gordon


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Coleman, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Boyes, Roland
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm
Dalyell, Tam


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Caborn, Richard
Deakins, Eric





Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Madden, Max


Dormand, Jack
Marek, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon,)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foster, Derek
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Patchett, Terry


Freud, Clement
Pavitt, Laurie


Garrett, W. E.
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Gourlay, Harry
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Raynsford, Nick


Hancock, Michael
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rogers, Allan


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Howells, Geraint
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Straw. Jack


Kennedy, Charles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Lambie, David
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Welsh, Michael


Litherland, Robert
White, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Gordon


McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Woodall, Alec


McGuire, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



McKelvey, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Ron Davies.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ancram, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Arnold, Tom






Ashby, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Galley, Roy


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Benyon, William
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, John
Gow, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Harvey, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Hickmet, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holt, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Corrie, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dunn, Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Anthony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey





Lawrence, Ivan
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Major, John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Terlezki, Stefan


Monro, Sir Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Norris, Steven
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Osborn, Sir John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walters, Dennis


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Ward, John


Pollock, Alexander
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry
Warren, Kenneth


Portillo, Michael
Watson, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Whitfield, John


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Raymond


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wiggin, Jerry


Raffan, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Michael


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Francis Maude and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House reasserts its commitment to the Commonwealth and the goal of peaceful change in South Africa through negotiation; does not believe that general economic sanctions would help to secure that objective; notes that the Government is committed by the Nassau Accord and the Declaration by the European Council at The Hague on 27th June 1986 to consultations with the Commonwealth, the Community and other allies on further measures which might be needed; and welcomes the efforts of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his capacity as President of the Twelve to establish conditions in which negotiations can take place.

Poverty (Elderly Persons)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the Government's niggardly pension increase of 40 pence, the break of the link with earnings which this year has prevented an increase three times higher, the cuts in housing benefit of £450 million, the reductions in public transport and the cuts in community provision, all of which chiefly hit pensioners, and bearing in mind that in seven Conservative years pensions have increased by three per cent. in real terms, while under the previous five Labour years they increased by 20 per cent. in real terms, calls on Her Majesty's Government to give priority to ending poverty among pensioners by reversing the tax hand-outs to the most privileged sections of society.
Our central contention in this debate is that poverty amongst the eldery in Britain today is shamefully high, that it is increasing, and that it desperately needs to be cut. Our contention is not only that the pension increase of 40p, due to be awarded in 12 day's time, is derisory but that the pension, at a mere £38·30 a week for a single person, compares extremely badly with pensions currently provided in other EEC countries and very badly too with the relative value of pensioners' cash allowances in this country in Victorian times, as I shall show.
It is our contention, too, that pensioners' living standards are suffering not only because of the miserable level of the pension but because they depend equally on a range of essential public services and are being dragged down by the cuts across the board in housing benefits, in the availability and cost of buses, in community care provision and in delayed access to hospitals for vital operations such as hip replacements.
I read with incredulity in last Saturday's newspapers that the Secretary of State for Social Services was issuing a call for an increased share of national prosperity for the old, the sick and the poor. I say "with incredulity" because no Government in modern times have done more than this Government to diminish that share. Indeed no Minister has done more to diminish it than the right hon. Gentleman; it is with regret that I note that he is not present this evening to hear me.
The Secretary of State has just completed what he likes to call the biggest review of the welfare state since Beveridge. According to the Government's own figures, the effect will be that 2·25 million pensioners will lose money, three times more than will gain. The average overall effect for all pensioners — again I quote the Government, as I shall do repeatedly in my speech—is a loss of 80p, twice the royal ransom that pensioners will get in a couple of weeks' time.
No fewer than 120,000 pensioners are being handed cuts in excess of £5 a week, which at today's pension levels would be the equivalent of hon. Members having their salaries docked by over £2,000 a year. One wonders Low many Tory Members who voted for the Social Security Bill would support the same medicine being handed out to themselves.
All that is minor compared with what the Government did in 1980, the effect of which still continues and will increase, contrary to the Secretary of State's claims. The Government in 1980 took a clear and unequivocal decision not to give pensioners a share in the rising national


prosperity. They decided to uprate pensions only in line with price increases and not, as the previous Labour Government had done, in line with earnings. [Interruption.] The hon. Member may laugh, but if he considers the facts which I am about to give the laugh will be on him.
If Labour's formula had been continued, the pension increase paid this month would have been three times greater. That is one important fact. More important, if Labour's formula had not been changed—I have asked an independent source in the Library to produce these figures—the pension for a single person today would be no less than £5·95 per week higher than it is, and the pension for a married couple would be no less than £9·40 higher. Those amounts would apply to every week in 1986.
So far from increasing pensioners' share of the national cake, by that decision alone the Government have knocked off cumulatively £5 billion from pensioners' living standards since 1979. That is over the short period of six years. The Government's decision will continue to operate until it is changed, so over a lifetime, or the next 70 years, the figures of the Government's Actuary show that giving pensioners their share of the rising national income, that is, by paying pensions in line with earnings, would cumulatively put into pensioners' pockets pensions worth £56 billion. Those figures were issued recently by the Government.
By refusing to give pensioners their share of the rising national income, that is, by uprating pensions purely in line with prices, the Government have decided to allocate only £20 billion to pensioners over the same period. Again, that is the Government's own estimate. It really is the most brazen cynicism for the Secretary of State to call for pensioners and others to have their due share of rising national prosperity and then to do—and it is what the Government do that matters — exactly the reverse by reducing pensions by nearly two-thirds below that level over the period of a lifetime.
It is not as though the pension in Britain is exactly generous. I suspect that hon. Ministers and those outside the House—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Also it will result in more pensioners having to ask for supplementary benefit as a counter balance.

Mr. Meacher: Of course, and I shall be commenting on that. My hon. Friend has made a very important point. Figures that were issued yesterday show that the number of people on supplementary benefit, including pensioners, has reached an all-time high.
I suspect that most people have little idea of how miserably badly the pension in this country compares with pensions that are now being paid in other European countries. According to the Department's evidence, which was given in a written answer last year, the total state pension amounts to just 27 per cent. of average earnings in Britain. In Germany it is 50 per cent.; in Belgium it is 60 per cent.; in France it is 60 to 70 per cent. Therefore, by international standards the pension in this country is pathetically inadequate. If other countries can pay a significantly higher pension, why cannot we? That question has never been satisfactorily answered by the Government.
It is not only by international comparisons that it can be seen that today our pensioners are getting such a raw deal. It is also by comparison with what happened in the past in this country. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that poverty is not an absolute; it is relative to the average standard of living in society at any time. By that standard, pensioners today are somewhat worse off —I say advisedly "worse off'—than their forebears who received the first state old-age pension in the early years of this century.
It may seem remarkable to the House, but it is true, that they are much worse off— by comparison with the average worker, which is the relevant comparison—than those elderly persons who received the poor law allowances in the middle of the last century. Those allowances than amounted to roughly two-thirds or more of the income of an adult worker. Today the elderly are allotted little more than one-third of the income of the average adult worker.
We hear a great deal from the Prime Minister about Victorian values whenever she wants to exhort us to be thrifty. If she really believes in such values, she ought to apply them to her treatment of pensioners. If she did, it would mean a dramatic reversal of everything that she has done over pensions during the past seven years.
Unlike the Government, the Opposition believe that at present pensioners receive a shameful return after a lifetime of service to this country. We believe that widespread poverty in old age is an indictment of our society and that it should be removed. We believe that pensioners should be given a full share in rising national prosperity. It was precisely for those reasons that the last Labour Government increased pensions in line with earnings each year, with the result that the value of the pension rose 20 per cent. in real terms during the five years of the last Labour Government, compared with a mere 3 to 4 per cent. during the last seven years of this Government. It was precisely for those same reasons that the last Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme, which uniquely offers a high road out of poverty in old age and at last begins to put this country on a par with what other European countries already do for their pensioners. Yet it is upon this high road that this Government are now insisting on imposing a road block.
In the current Social Security Bill, the build-up of SERPS, which would have taken virtually all pensioners well above the supplementary benefit poverty line without a means test, is being stopped in its tracks. The latest report of the Government Actuary shows that the cutbacks in SERPS will amount to no less than £19 billion in the middle of the next century. That is the amount which the Government are proposing over that period to take away from pensioners.
These figures, huge though they are, may still not convey the full enormity of what the Government are doing to pensioners. Therefore, I put down a question in which I asked what would be the combined effect on the ordinary pension of the two major structural changes that this Government have made in the state pension: the chopping back of SERPS and the uprating in line with prices only. I received a written answer, which Members can look up, if they wish, on 6 February 1986. It showed that a young man who starts work in 1988 when the current Social Security Bill is intended to come into operation will end up with a combined basic and SERPS


pension that is worth only £64 a week at 1985 prices. By comparison, if Labour's policy were pursued of uprating pensions in line with earnings and retaining SERPS in its present form, the written answer shows that he would receive a pension of exactly twice as much—£128 a week, again at 1985 prices.
That is the real case against the Government. It is not just a question of this cut or that cut here and now—although that is bad enough. It is the fundamental structural attack which this Government have launched on the position of pensioners in society which will drastically affect every single person in this country—not just those who are now retired but also middle-aged workers, young workers and those who are still at school. Indeed, the younger they are, the more it will affect them. For every person in this country the knives are out. They will hack back the state pension to which people can look forward by up to a half.
The gist of our case is that the framework of decent pensions above the poverty line is being dismantled. But the picture in the short term is not very different. Pensioners are being hit here and now by the huge £450 million cut in housing benefit. They were robbed of £550 million when the Government changed from a forecasting to a historic basis for uprating. They lost another £86 million when the Government increased the available scale margin, thus hitting the poorest pensioners on supplementary benefit who were receiving heating allowances.
Another £50 million is now being taken away from pensioners because of the Government's increase in the rates taper for housing benefit and their abolition of central heating additions for supplementary benefit claimants. Soon, if the Lords amendments are reversed, the poorest pensioners on supplementary benefit will be forced to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. That must inevitably force them below the poverty line. It will be the first time that any Government have ever done that. Over the next quarter of a century, widows — the great majority of whom will be pensioners—according to the Government's own figures that they have just released, will be deprived of £12 million, because of the cuts in widows' benefits that will arise from the Social Security Bill.
To compensate for all of that, in a couple of weeks time pensioners are to be treated to a bonanza rise of 40p. If that is not offensive enough, let me add that the next pensions increase will not be much bigger. The Secretary of State will announce it in October, which happens to be the month of the big bang. That is the nickname for financial deregulation in the City, but one might be excused for thinking that it referred to the explosive escalation of salaries in the City.
There is something ineradicably repellent yet irrefutably characteristic about this Government that in the same month that the Prime Minister's friends in the City—her people — will be popping the champagne corks to celebrate their six-figure pay packets, the Secretary of State will unveil the next pension increase, which I predict will be about 80p. So much for caring capitalism. So much for the Prime Minister's policy for the family. So much for giving pensioners a share in rising national prosperity. Frankly, I am amazed that the Prime Minister and her colleagues do not choke on the nausea of their cynicism.
Nor is there any compensation when we consider the social wage. Rather, the reverse is the case. The social wage is very important and good public services are an essential part of the livelihood of most pensioners. Pensioners,

perhaps more than any other group in the population, have been the main victims or the steady erosion of public service provision over the past several years. Cuts in bus routes and the higher costs of fares under the Transport Bill must severely reduce pensioners' mobility. No doubt that will leave many pensioners little more than prisoners in their home area.
Reductions in home helps, meals on wheels, day centres, chiropody services, and the lack of respite for carers looking after the frail, confused or disabled elderly are all diminishing the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of pensioners. The lengthening waiting lists in many areas for crucial operations such as hip replacements leave thousands of pensioners not just in discomfort—although that is bad enough—but in intense pain for months at a time.
We reject a system with such priorities. We reject the system which gives a pittance of an increase on a pittance of a pension, while at the same time the Top Salaries Review Body awards an increase of nearly £50 a week to top civil servants, judges and military personnel. We reject a system which allowed 1,000 elderly people to die of hypothermia last year while the bungled bureaucratic farce of exceptionally severe weather payments denied help to pensioners even when the temperature was below zero. Above all, we reject a system and a Government which, according to the written answer issued yesterday, drives up the number in poverty to 5,250,000 claimants, the highest level ever recorded in Britain. That means that there are now officially more than 8 million people—one in seven of the population—living on or below the poverty line in Britain today. Of course, a high proportion are pensioners.
Instead of that, we propose a charter of justice for pensioners. As a priority, we will raise the single person's pension by £5 a week and the married couple's pension by £8 a week. That will broadly compensate pensioners for what they have lost during the Tory years by the break in the earnings link. We will pay for that and for a £3 a week increase in child benefit by taking back the tax handouts now totalling over £3·5 billion a year which have been poured out on the richest 5 per cent. of the population —the Prime Minister's own people—in honour of her zealous vision of growing inequality.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many years on the trot the Labour party intends to offer the £5 and £8 increase? Will they, as they did in 1974, give a substantial increase made on a promise which won the election in the first year and then take it back in the following year?

Mr. Meacher: We will continue to pay those sums for every year that we remain in government. I do not think it is surprising that, having made that change, we will maintain that change in the order book. Each year, the £3·5 billion which the richest 5 per cent. would have received will go to pensioners, mothers with young children and to the long-term unemployed. A little will still be left over for the severely and very severely handicapped. That is a policy of social justice which I believe the people will strongly support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far with his £3·6 billion clawback in tax from high income earners, may I ask him whether he


is aware that the promises that he has made amount to a cost per annum not of £3·6 billion but, on reasonable assumptions, of £5·6 billion?

Mr. Meacher: That figure is as fabricated as the £24 billion which the Government like to prate about on every occasion.

Mr. Major: rose—

Mr. Meacher: The Minister will have an opportunity to make his speech. I want to make it clear that the main item in that £24 billion is £3 billion which is allotted to the reduction of the pension age to a common age of 60. I have not said that. the Labour party has not said that and it is not party policy that the age will be reduced to 60. Yet it appears as the biggest single item in the Government's list. That is typical of the moonshine represented by these allegations.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is being inaccurate. However, rather than take up too much of his time, I shall be happy later—if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye—to set out in some detail the costings of the hon. Gentleman's promise.

Mr. Meacher: I should be delighted if the Minister were to do that. I hope that the costings will be more accurate than some of the allegations made earlier in the year. I remind the Minister—as he probably needs reminding—that the figures which I have quoted have been worked out on the basis of Treasury written answers and answers from the DHSS. I stand precisley by the figures that I have given because they are correct.
We will also restore the link with earnings because we believe that pensioners should fully share in rising national prosperity. We will retain SERPS, which is perfectly affordable because it offers pensioners the best deal that they have ever had and because SERPS will finally end the cruel indignity of means-tested poverty in old age.
We will tackle the horror of hypothermia by a new winter fuel premium of £5 a week for the coldest months from December to March. We will make the steady buildup of community care services, which are so vital to the well-being of the aged, one of the priorities for a renewed Health Service.
I do not deny that this is an ambitious programme but it is also a rigorously costed and practical programme. I believe that the vast majority of the British people will endorse it. Taken against the miserable and niggardly record on pensions over the past seven years, I believe that that programme will shortly play a major part in finally sweeping the Government from power.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its achievement in increasing the purchasing power of the national insurance retirement pension during a period when the number of pensioners has risen by nearly a million; endorses the Government's firm commitment fully to protect pensioners against rising prices; welcomes the continued development of health and community services for the elderly; recognises the Government's outstanding success in reducing the rise in prices to the lowest level for nearly twenty years; and notes that security in retirement would be the first casualty of the

renewed and rapid inflation which would flow from the expenditure and taxation policies advocated by Her Majesty's Opposition.'
In moving the amendment, I want first to set out clearly and in less heated but more factual terms than those used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) what the Government have achieved in relation to pensions.
When we came to office in 1979, the national insurance retirement pension for a married couple stood at the rate set in November 1978—£19·50 a week. In less than a fortnight's time, with the uprating which takes place on 28 July, it will have been increased to £38·70 a week. That is an increase of £19·20 in cash terms, and of only just short of 100 per cent. in percentage terms. It compares with a rise in prices of several points less over the same period. Pensioners have therefore had a real increase in their standard of living—as indeed even the hon. Gentleman's motion has the grace to acknowledge. The fact is that we have more than kept faith with the clear promise we made —and continue to make, and will continue to fulfil—fully to protect the retirement pension against the rise in prices. What is more, we are doing so on the basis of clear facts about what that rise has actually been, not on the basis of the previous Government's hit-or-miss forecasts that turned out wrong five times out of seven.
Nor have those increases been achieved as a matter of easy routine. They have been made against a difficult economic background. And they have been made not only for the 8·5 million pensioners who existed in 1979, but for a number which has grown in the intervening period by nearly a million to the 9·5 million pensioners we have today. In other words, we are now paying better pensions than ever before, and to more pensioners than ever before. As always, the hon. Member for Oldham, West goes on about "cuts". It is his most frequently used word. There is no cut here. Spending on pensions has increased from £7·5 billion in 1978–79 to £16·5 billion in 1985–86. Of course, some of that increased spending is the consequence of inflation, albeit at the greatly reduced rate which has been not the least of the Government's successes, but much of it is not just the consequence of inflation. For example, £2·5 billion represents a real increase in the value of the resources that we devote to the state retirement pension, and of that, £1·5 billion represents the real increase in the purchasing power of pensions.
If the hon. Gentleman really wants, as he obviously does because he does little else, to talk about cuts perhaps he would tell us about the Christmas bonus and explain to the House why the Government of whom he was a member simply refused to pay it for two of the five Christmases during which they were in office.

Mr. Meacher: Piffling.

Mr. Newton: The Christmas bonus is piffling? Is that official Labour policy? Will that lead to the cancellation of the bonus under any future Labour Government?

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Labour Government may not have paid the bonus, and it was wrong not to do so, but the Minister is talking about an amount of £20. When will he restore the money that he has taken from pensioners during the past seven years?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may not think that £20 is much money, but one matter that the House must judge, in considering the words of the hon. Member for


Oldham, West about what he would do if he got the chance, is what he did when he had the chance. When he was a Minister in the DHSS he did not pay the Christmas bonus. The present Government have made the bonus a clear annual entitlement under the law.

Mr. Meacher: I was saying that it is a piffling point to refer to the fact that for two years the Christmas bonus was not paid. That is £20 less than pensioners might otherwise have got. Will the Minister tell us the value of a 20 per cent. real increase, multiplied by every week for five years, because that is the amount by which it was increased? It is hundreds of times more than the piffling amount to which he constantly refers.

Mr. Newton: It does not seem to me to be piffling or trivial to observe, when listening to the promises that the hon. Gentleman now so relentlessly makes whenever he gets the opportunity, that some regard should be paid to what he did when he had the chance to act. In effect, he cheated the old-age pensioners of their Christmas bonus two Christmases out of five.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am most interested in following the Minister's observations. He has waxed eloquent about the loss of £20 in five years. Will he comment on the £570 that the pensioner couple has lost and the £390 that the single pensioner has lost since 1981 under the Government's cuts?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I would. I should like to comment on them in the following way, because it is the other great deficiency in the credibility of the hon. Gentleman, and slightly less in the case of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), because she was at least cutting expenditure in another Department during the period of office of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman will remember clearly, because he was in the Department under the Labour Government, that when it came to the crunch of fulfilling all of those promises about increases related to earnings, after the International Monetary Fund had become involved in 1976 and 1977, the then Secretary of State for Social Services invented a dodge to change the uprating method which had the effect of taking £1,000 million in a full year from pensioners, measured by today's value of pensions.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard from me before — I do not wish to weary him too much—that that was when, as we all know, the celebrated story appeared in The Times on 11 March 1976 of how the hon. Gentleman had attended a pensioners' rally arranged by his brotherly loving friends in the Trades Union Congress and was shouted down as he tried to explain the Government's record on pensions. That is what happened when the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to take responsibility for those matters. Alongside those broad measures which benefit all pensioners, we have made many other important improvements for some groups.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: One of the most welcome defeats inflicted upon the Social Security Bill in the other place concerning pensions was the rejection of the 20 per cent. domestic rates contribution. As the matter is of special importance to Scottish pensioners vis-à-vis the recent revaluation exercise inflicted upon pensioners by the Government, what is the likelihood of the measure being reintroduced by the Government next week when the Bill returns to the House?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the consideration of the Bill in the other place is not yet completed. It would be inappropriate for me to respond to his question until it has been completed. I shall not disguise from him the fact that the Government still firmly believe that it is important to improve the accountability of local authorities to their electorates and to impose that through the social security system.
That is my description of the broad achievements of the Government in relation to the national insurance pension. Of course, there has been a range of other improvements, some of them admittedly only important to small but nevertheless important groups of people, which should not be forgotten when the House debates retirement pensions. For example, we have taken steps to ensure that a married woman over 80 who qualified for a non-contributory pension gets it at a full rate, not a reduced one. We have also relaxed the residence rule for those non-contributory over-80s pensions, in such a way as to enable people who return to Britain after the age of 70 to qualify, whereas under the previous regime they could never have got such a pension.
Although that is a small point, I take special pleasure in it, since I well recall trying to persuade the Labour Government to do almost exactly that in a Social Security Bill Standing Committee of which I was a member in 1978, only to have my proposal strongly resisted by the then Labour Minister for Social Security.
More importantly, we have abolished the remaining effects of the old half-test for married women which we inherited from the Labour Government and which prevented many married women from receiving their pension in return for the contributions that they had made. That measure alone enables 20,000 people — married women who reached the age of 60 before 1979 — to receive pensions on those contributions that they would not otherwise have had.
Nor, despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt to say so, have we forgotten those pensioners who are least well-off and on supplementary pensions. We have increased their pensions, too, in real terms. The rules about capital have been eased to help those with limited savings. Extra help with heating costs has been substantially increased since we took office and extended so that many more pensioners and more than 90 per cent. of pensioners on supplementary benefit receive such an addition with a higher rate for the over-85s. We have, of course, made it clear that the spending on heating additions will become part of the new scheme and will be taken into account in setting the new premium rates of income support for pensioners.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: There are many hon. Members who wish to speak, and I am in danger of taking too much time. I have already given way many times and it is right, from the point of view of the entire House, that I should continue. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that last winter, during the period of exceptionally cold weather, many elderly people needed extra assistance but could not obtain it because of the byzantine complexity and the lack of public understanding about the additional help that


should be made available and potentially is available? Does he accept that something must be done before next winter to ensure that elderly people do not die from cold?

Mr. Newton: I have made it entirely clear that neither the Government nor anybody else is satisfied with the way in which that regulation has worked during the last two winters. We have been considering that matter and I hope that it will not be too long before I can give some idea of our intentions, although I cannot do so tonight.
As I have told the House before when discussing the Government's record on pensions, we need not apologise for that record. It is one in which we can, and do, take pride. That pride is in no way affected by the fact that, largely because of the Government's success in cutting inflation, the actual amount of this July's pension increase is modest by the standards of the Labour days when large increases were needed just to stand still. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on a previous occasion, the one ambition of the hon. Member for Oldham, West seems to be to return to the days of 20 per cent. inflation so that he can then claim credit for 20 per cent. pension increases, and completely ignore the hardship caused by that inflation.
Much of the hon. Gentleman's speech was nothing more than a re-run of his speech in the debate on the uprating orders a month ago. As the hon. Gentleman has re-run his speech, I shall remind the House of my comments on that occasion. The pension increases that will come into effect in a fortnight are four months earlier than usual and, when taken with last November's increase, will mean that the pension for a married couple will be increased by £4·65 a week in less than a year. There will be another increase only eight months later, resulting in three increases in a period that would normally have seen two.
The hon. Gentleman relentlessly runs away from the fact that those increases are coupled with greater price stability than we have seen for decades, and that is probably the biggest single bonus that pensioners have had in 20 or 30 years. That helps to give us a more sensible framework for future increases and is fully in line, as have been all our actions, with our firm and continuing commitment to maintain the value of the pension.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated almost exclusively on social security, despite the fact that his motion refers rather more widely to aspects of health and personal social services as well. I should like to comment on that because it is of great importance to our retired population. It is an area in which any Government will face a significant challenge over the coming decades, and well into the next century. Total expenditure on social services has increased from a little over £1 billion in 1978–79 to nearly £2·5 billion in 1985–86, a real increase of over 20 per cent. A growing proportion of that increase relates to the elderly.
The hon. Gentleman made some play of a number of statistics relating to social services. I shall give him just one to digest while he considers the rest of the debate. Everybody would accept that day centres are an important part of our provision for the elderly. There are now 39,700 places, representing an increase of 31·5 per cent. since 1978. That is the kind of provision which we are seeking to stimulate and encourage as part of an overall greater flexibility and diversity in the provision of care.

Mrs. Beckett: Since the Minister said that he wanted to give the House as much information as possible, will he now tell us how much of that was spent by Labour-controlled local authorities who have continually been criticised and rate capped by the Government as a result?

Mr. Newton: The Government have consistently sought to encourage all local authorities to make better use of the money they spend on social services, and to give greater priority to the needs of groups such as the elderly. That policy and the Government's encouragement are reflected in what is happening.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that last year the Department of the Environment informed 30 of the 32 London boroughs that their social services budget was over the grant-related expenditure allocation formula, and that a significant number, I think half, were over the target figure as well, specifically on social services, which means, in effect, that the Government were telling those authorities to cut back on their social services provision, much of which was for the elderly?

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman examines some of the work of the Audit Commission and others, he will know just how many of those London boroughs could deliver a great deal more service for the same amount of money, as has been demonstrated by local authorities up and down the country.
I am anxious to allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, but I should also like to comment on National Health Service expenditure which has risen by some 25 per cent. in real terms, in respect of people aged 65 and over between 1978–79 and 1984–85. Those increases have meant that, despite the rising population of people over retirement age, expenditure per head rose by some 19 per cent. over that period. This in turn has been reflected in the services available to them.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to hip operations. The number of hip replacements, 75 per cent. of which are performed on elderly people, rose from just over 28,000 to well over 37,000 in that period and a similar pattern is true of other operations which are of particular importance to elderly people.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I put this point gently because the problem is difficult. It relates to dental care. The Minister will be aware of the representations of the General Dental Practitioners Association and of the problems encountered by many hon. Members in their constituencies. On visiting the dentist, some, but not all, elderly people find that the charges are rather high, up to £115. Is it not an anomaly that charges should be made for X-rays of the mouth in cases where elderly people do not have to pay for X-rays of other parts of the body? There are other anomalies, but all I am asking is that the Department of Health and Social Security should study the problem and comment on it. I see the Secretary of State nodding. I think that he recognises that this is a real problem.

Mr. Newton: I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State murmur "Certainly" just as the hon. Gentleman saw him nodding and we shall, of course, look at the points he raised. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make any comment that he can at the end of the debate, but it may well be more appropriate for us to write to the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
Before I conclude, I should like to comment on the promises and estimates made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on which he was challenged by my hon. Friend. I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures that we have put on the promises that he has made and repeated today. For the promises that he has made about increasing retirement pension and supplementary pension, assuming he intends to adjust the housing benefit needs allowances—

Mr. Meacher: Oh!

Mr. Newton: Let me run through my figures. It is going to be very interesting indeed. I shall give my figures and we shall then see what interesting gloss the hon. Gentleman wishes to put on them. The pension increases which he has just repeated, and to adjust the housing benefit needs allowances in line, would cost £2·2 billion. It will cost £1·85 billion to increase child benefit by £3, along with supplementary benefit and housing benefit needs allowances for families with children, to ensure that they too benefit from the increase. To pay the long-term scale rate for people who are unemployed for more than one year would cost £540 million. This makes a total of £4·6 billion as distinct from the £3·6 billion mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
We have also assumed that, in line with the policies of successive Governments over many years, he would also wish to raise other long-term national insurance benefits, for example, widows' benefit, to which he referred in such loving terms, and invalidity benefit which for people between 65 and 70 years of age is, in some circumstances, virtually an alternative to retirement pension.

Mr. Raynsford Will the Minister give way?: Mr. Raynsford Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: No, let me finish.
We have also assumed that the hon. Gentleman would raise the supplementary allowance long-term scale rate and avoid offsetting savings in supplementary benefit for widowed mothers and people on invalidity benefit, and that housing benefit needs allowances would also have to be increased. That is how we reach the total of £5·6 billion. I should be fascinated to hear—indeed, I should like to hear it now—whether the real meaning of those large and apparently generous promises is that the poorest people, in respect of housing benefit needs allowances and supplementary benefit, whether they are pensioners, families with children, the long-term unemployed, widows or those on invalidity benefit, are to get no benefit from the hon. Gentleman's promises. Because on the £3·6 billion, every penny, as far as I can judge, will be clawed back from the poorest social security beneficiaries. Is that the policy?

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Hon Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): . Order. I thought that the Minister was giving way to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I hope that he will make clear to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Newton: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Oldham, West in order that he should make clear his policy. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene to tell me what his policy is in a way which clarifies the matter, I see no reason for giving way to any more of his hon. Friends at this stage of the debate.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall riot give way.
We now know either that the promises of the hon. Member for Oldham, West mean nothing for the poorest people on social security benefits, or that they would cost a great deal more than the money he can get from the so-called wealthy taxpayers, in which case we want to know where the rest of the money is coming from. Which ordinary taxpayers, which VAT rate, which other forms of taxation will be raised to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objectives?

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
The House must recognise that the promises of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—whatever they turn out to be—must be set against Labour's record. I have already referred to the Christmas bonus fiddle and the uprating fiddle of the Labour Government. The invalid care allowance, which this Government are now extending to married women, was introduced on a discriminatory anti-married woman basis by the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.
In 1977–78 the NHS budget was cut by 3 per cent. in real terms — the only time that that has happened in recorded history. In 1978–79 capital spending on hospitals in Great Britain was reduced to £436 million, which compares with well over £1 billion available now for spending on new facilities for pensioners in the NHS.
Lastly, I make the point about the dog that has not barked in this debate. It is clear from everything that the hon. Gentleman has said that the target for this debate is not the relatively few Members of Parliament assembled here this evening; it is the electors of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow. I just wonder why it is that the dog that has not barked is the Bradwell geriatric hospital in the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency. That is a £5 million development for the very elderly people who are the subject of the debate. That was cut by Labour and dropped from the capital programme when that programme was cut by one third in 1976–77. That programme has been restored by this Government. The hospital is now being built and will open at the end of next year. The reality against which the hon. Gentleman's promises have to be measured is the cuts of the Labour Government and the building programme of this one.
In the previous debate that we had on these matters about a month ago, I predicted that if the hon. Gentleman were let loose to spend as he promises we should have back the surging inflation that marked the previous Labour Government, with all the hardship that that meant for pensioners in Britain. Today I shall venture another prediction. If the hon. Gentleman were to achieve what no doubt is his heart's desire, and became the Secretary of State for Social Services, he would not last six months. It would simply become too embarrassing for his colleagues to listen to him speaking at the Government Dispatch Box, eating all the words that he had uttered at the Opposition Dispatch Box. I invite the Roues to reject the motion, to accept the amendment, arid to help save the hon. Gentleman from that embarrassment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The mark of a society that is in some difficulty and, indeed, in


some danger is one that does not offer decent prospects to young people nor a fair chance of security to the old. Despite the side of the House on which hon. Members may sit, they will have to agree that two of the biggest social problems that Britain has at the moment are the lack of opportunity for the young and the sense of insecurity for the elderly. Ministers are not doing themselves or their case, far less the issue at stake, much good by trying to pretend that there are no problems, conflicts or competing priorities to be faced. In that respect, I found the Minister's speech, entertaining though it was in its analysis of the Labour party's economic policies — an analysis with which I would concur—disappointing in that it did not seek to address some of the serious and genuine problems that exist.
It was interesting that in April 1985 a public opinion poll carried out by MORI showed that 69 per cent. of people, when asked, believed the basic state pension to be too low. I hardly think that in the wake of a 40p increase that percentage of people expressing dissatisfaction with the level of the basic pension is liable to have dropped. I should have thought that one could say clearly that at least three quarters of the population would like to see a higher basic pension.
If we want that, the Minister, in putting forward his case, is right to stress that at the end of the day that can only be based on a sound economic policy. I agree that simply to run a highly inflationary economic policy and then to claim some credit for increasing a basic pension rate in line with high levels of inflation is nothing to be proud of. His analysis is correct.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will admit that in the case that has been put forward by my right hon. Friends and myself over the past few years at each Budget time, in marked contrast to the Labour party, we have produced a costed economic programme and have admitted where our spending priorities would have to be met by specific increases in certain areas, or that certain things that we would like to do as a point of principle cannot be achieved in the immediate future because the money would not be there to do so. I hope that the Minister will be fair-minded enough to recognise the difference of approach which exists between the Labour party and ourselves in putting forward those kinds of social priorities.
So it has been with pensions.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I am deeply appreciative that the hon. Gentleman has given way. He is right in saying that the Benches that he represents have a policy which is costed. Would he be so kind as to inform the House of the increase that he would make, particularly as we now know the position of the Opposition?

Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman reads the programme for government which we presented at the last general election, and subsequent policy statements—and a further statement which we shall make in the autumn, although I cannot anticipate its contents—he will find that we propose that a married couple with no private pension or other income would receive a basic pension of £63·25. We also propose a scheme of pensioner credit, which would provide an additional £5·72. The total of £68·95 should be compared with the Government's proposed £61·30. Moreover, pensioners' housing costs

would be met. Even if the pennies change between now and the autumn, the change would mean that a pensioner's income would be substantially above supplementary benefit rates.
At the last general election and since, when we have introduced private Members' Bills, my right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to abolish standing charges. We have allowed for that in our figures. That would be welcomed in various parts of the House and in the country.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time two Bills which would have abolished standing charges, one of which was mine on pensioners' rights to heat, light and communications, were presented, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), a member of the Sainsbury family, opposed them on behalf of the Government and thus prevented this important matter from being debated?

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. I am glad that it is on record. It will be interesting to read the Official Report tomorrow to see whether it remains on the record. I am sure that he will make strenuous efforts to ensure that it is. It is important to be aware that, when there has been opposition, it has come from the Government.
In the social security reviews, the Government are displaying supreme insensitivity in regard to the death grant, which is an important matter for many elderly people. The Government now suggest that the grant, which is woefully low—low enough to be a poor joke— is to be abolished and that some means, as yet rather ill-defined, will be established to provide support through the social fund. Subjecting elderly people at a time of bereavement to some regionally cash-limited, means-tested interview procedure is callous. Our policy document on this matter suggests that the death grant should be increased immediately to £250, and that it should be reclaimable out of the estate of the deceased according to its size.
Our Budget statement in March made it clear that we would restore the deplorable cut in heating allowances. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, it is scandalous to suggest that pensioners should contribute 20 per cent. of their rates. It is clear that there are to be real cuts in housing benefit. Despite the Minister's robust defence of the social security reviews, it is worth noting the conclusion reached by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:
the reviews imply a significant shift of resources from pensioners to the working age population, half of all pensioners are more than 1 per cent. worse off and 11 per cent. have their incomes reduced by more than 5 per cent. The net effect is a transfer of £300 million".
I should like Ministers to attack those figures as well briefed and with the same enthusiasm with which they attack the figures advanced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Government seem considerably more reticent to attack a detailed and independent analysis by such groups than they are to attack their political opponents. We are left wondering why. We, and perhaps Ministers in their hearts, know that independent analyses reveal the disturbing truth.

Dr. Godman: I am listening closely to what an alliance Government would provide for pensioners. The hon. Gentleman mentioned heating additions. I do not know about his experience in the part of Scotland which he


represents, but in Strathclyde there have been many complaints about exceptionally severe weather payments for February. I know that many scores of thousands of payments were made in Scotland and, presumably, a goodly number were made to pensioners. What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that dreadful state of affairs?

Mr. Kennedy: As I said earlier, we must try to assist at the outset by giving a more substantial basic pension to help people to heat their homes. We must recognise that such additional payments will be made, however, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that the system is botched and chaotic. I have heard from people who work in the DHSS that, much as they want to help, they are furious when the Minister of State, in response to political pressure here, goes on television to say that the Government have fixed it because he has issued a blanket instruction that such payments must be made. People who work in the DHSS are then deluged with applications from pensioners. They cannot cope and, in July, they are still working on the backlog.
The Government have made more people dependent on social security benefits and added to poverty. They have also cut the number of DHSS staff. Even the best system in the world will not operate properly if there are insufficient people to administer it. We must make the system better and increase the number of personnel to make it operate better. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that would be a step in the right direction, and better than what the Government offer.
I do not know to what extent the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reads reports of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Major: Daily.

Mr. Kennedy: Jeffrey Archer clearly has competition when it comes to the Minister's bedside reading. The Scottish Grand Committee recently had a debate on the Scottish Office proposal to reform the rating system in Scotland. I do not intend to get into that horrendously complicated issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a valid point concerning the 20 per cent. rate contribution. Apparently, we face that prospect in Scotland much sooner than people south of the border. We asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he would accommodate that fact and what form the system would take in Scotland in the transition towards the community charge—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The poll tax.

Mr. Kennedy: Indeed. The community charge is Saachi and Saachi's description of a poll tax. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that it is not his responsibility because it comes under the social security reviews which are being handled by the DHSS. The Minister will appreciate that Scottish Members have been told by the Secretary of State that, although he is getting rid of rates, it is not his problem that some way has to be found to collect the 20 per cent. contribution. We have never had, from the DHSS or from the Scottish Office, an adequate description of what will happen in Scotland in the transitional phase and thereafter. I would be grateful if he could give some indication tonight because many hon. Members would be extremely interested to find out what

the Government propose to do. My strong hunch is that the Government do not have the faintest idea what to do about the problem. Judging by the rather guilty grin on fie Minister's face, I suspect that that is an accurate assumption. We shall listen with interest, and I hope that he can satisfy us better than did his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We tend to think of the pensioner being cared for. We must also remember those pensioners who are perhaps parents of handicapped children and who are having to look after them. We must also think of pensioners who have to look after very aged parents, perhaps in their late 80s or early 90s. We all know the effect of that because we see it in our communities. More often than not, it is the person doing the caring who ends up falling ill or dying as a result of the strain. That being the case, it would be good to see the Government move in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), myself and my colleagues of introducing a carers' charter which would seek to give those who care informally for dependent or handicapped relatives or whoever in the community. not just a level of' support through a carer's benefit, but some form of agreement with local authorities so that relief facilities can be provided to give the carer a much-needed break.
Unfortunately, although the Government paid considerable lip service to the private Member's Bill dealing with services-and representation for disabled people, they did not move very far down the line in practical support.
I said at the beginning that in this country we are not caring adequately in terms of opportunities for the young or security for the old. Tonight we are debating the elderly. One of the things which must give the elderly the greatest cause for insecurity, with perhaps the single exception of the degree of violence in Britain, must be the fact that there is increasingly a glaring hole in the level of network support in the community to make care in the community the viable and realistic option that we all want it to be. That is coming about as a result of the complete distortion and lack of matching of Government policies. The Scottish Home and Health Department and the DHSS are encouraging care in the community, and the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office have policies for local government finance which are deliberately or directly thwarting that by the level to which they are pulling back on the resources which could be available.
Until that border problem begins to be tackled, I fear, despite the enthusiasm with which the Minister criticises his direct political opponent, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, across the Dispatch Box, the truth will be shown, not just in a certain constituency that goes to the polls tomorrow, but all over the country, that the lot for pensioners in this country under the Government is not something that the Minister should crow about to the extent that he did tonight. I believe that the policies put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends will, when put into practice, I hope by ourselves in government. prove a much better way forward.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: In taking part in this debate I feel, as a matter of honour, that I should declare that for the past seven years I have represented 95,000 old-age pensioners at national level. Having said that, I hold the view, and I have held it over many years, that the greatest blessing that any Government of any


persuasion can give to the sick, aged, infirm, unemployed, pensioners and those on fixed incomes is low inflation. The blessing that is being experienced at the moment with the level of inflation is something that the House, across all political divides, should applaud.
I went into the general election in 1983, like all Conservative Members, with a firm pledge that we would protect the retirement pension. I address the House this evening with a great sense of confidence that we have honoured that manifesto pledge to the letter.
I am a little surprised and disappointed that we have had so much debate regarding the heating costs. It is a simple, plain and unchallengeable fact that the allowances for heating are running at record levels. However, I must take account of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) regarding the administration. It was a source of considerable pleasure, not only to people in the House, but to pensioners at large, to hear the assurance from the Government Front Bench that positive steps are being taken to ensure that there will be a distinct improvement in the payment of those allowances next year. I am prepared to say loudly and clearly that there were considerable problems last year and I hope that we do not experience those administrative problems during the coming year. We are all part of a caring society and I claim to be part of a caring party. However, on that issue I know that there is room for considerable improvement.
I accept the suggestion that 42 per cent. of the facilities of the National Health Service are used by the elderly without qualification. If that is so, I am able to say, again with a sense of confidence, that spending on the NHS has gone up year by year and is a particular credit to the Government. We are particularly directing our attention to geriatric care for the infirm and those in considerable difficulty.
Let the message go out loud and clear that the number of consultants engaged in geriatric care in this country since 1979 has gone up by 34 per cent. I am proud of a party that has done that. In addition, the number of nurses engaged in looking after the elderly has gone up by 18 per cent. That is not enough. We are looking not only at the medical staff and the nurses but the facilities. How good it is to know that the Government have gone forward with a programme which has given a 31 per cent. increase in the amount of buildings in connection with the care of the elderly.
I believe—and this view may be shared on both sides of the Chamber—that the real caring community is not within geriatric wards or the NHS. To me, the hallmark of a caring society is within the home and family. I am perfectly prepared to stand up and be counted as one who cherishes the family unit. It is interesting to note that the increase in the number of places providing day care, which is a tremendous relief to those caring for the elderly, has increased by 4,000 since 1978.
I was saddened when the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), said that a Labour Government would increase the retirement pension of a married couple by £8 and that of a single pensioner by £5. When questioned, he held firm to those figures, and gave a policy commitment that they

would continue year upon year. In the midst of the 1983 general election the then Opposition spokesman on social services produced a figure of £11.
I do not believe that the British public want their pensions to be subject to an auction. They want a firm and fair pension and low inflation. I was pleased when I heard the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, the alliance's spokesman in this debate, say that the alliance would introduce a pension increase of £1·5o.
When we start talking about caring for the community and the people within it, I recall that prior to my election to this place I was for many years the spokesman of my local authority on social services. Socialist and Conservative members worked together and understood that when it came to social services the issues concerned people and not politics.

Mr. Kennedy: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow. He has said that the alliance would introduce a pension increase of £ 1·50p. I should have made it clear—I think I read out the figures—that we would increase the pension to £68·95. That must be compared with the Government's £61·30. I think that he will accept that the alliance proposes to introduce a significant increase.

Dr. Blackburn: I accept that I made a mistake. I thought that the hon. Gentleman said £63 and not £68. I apologise.
The local authority on which I served spoke with one voice in caring for the people for which it was responsible electorally. I recall receiving in 1978 one of the most memorable telephone calls in my life. I received a phone call at my home at half-past eight in the morning and was told to go to the town hall straight away. When I arrived, I discovered that the then Labour Government had been forced by the International Monetary Fund to make drastic reductions in their expenditure. The authority was called upon to cut its social services budget by £6 million within 24 hours. I am delighted to say — this reflects great credit on the authority — that we set about rearranging the budget responsibly and constructively to make allowance for the reduction that had been forced upon us by the then Socialist Government.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us on which local authority he served and the cuts that it has been instructed to make by the Conservative Government since 1979 in the form of reduced rate support grant and reduced block grant.

Dr. Blackburn: Certainly. I had the privilege of serving on Wolverhampton borough council, which became the Wolverhampton metropolitan council. The meeting to which I have referred took place in 1976, when the authority was under the control of a Socialist administration. Since that time the authority has had a record of extremely high spending, which resulted in a 56 per cent. wage increase two years ago. It is responsible to the electorate for that level of spending. I do not believe that social service provision has been significantly increased as a result of the increased expenditure on the part of the authority.
I was disappointed when the Christmas bonus was described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, as piffling.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr.


Meacher). He said that the way in which the Minister uses the Christmas bonus when he cannot think of anything else to say is piffling.

Dr. Blackburn: In musical terms, that is a variation on a theme. Whether piffling or not, I am proud to say that it is part of our policy, part of our principle and part of Britain's statute law.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Blackburn: No, I will not. I have given way four times already.
In my experience in this place and in local authority work, I have found that one of the keynotes of growth in social services and in caring for the elderly, the sick and the infirm is something which we seem to forget. It is called value for money. I am delighted to know that the important work that is undertaken by the Audit Commission is designed to ensure that there is the fullest utilisation of resources.
Like all other hon. Members, I take my political and constituency duties extremely seriously. A constituent came to me in considerable distress—I know that this is the experience of many other hon. Members—and told me that he had been waiting eight months for a hip replacement operation.

Dr. Godman: People wait for three years in Scotland for that operation.

Dr. Blackburn: Very well, there is a three-year wait in Scotland.
I found to my astonishment that facilities were available to carry out hip replacement operations. It seems that the difficulty is that the facilities are not available in the areas where they are needed. It was possible to transfer my constituent to Stanmore, Middlesex—a distance of about 100 miles—and the operation was performed in two weeks. There are many success stories of that sort that we can recount. I understand that 28,000 hip replacement operations were carried out in 1979 and that since then the number has increased to 37,000. These figures do not spell out a decrease in the number of these operations. Instead, they tell us that we have a caring community which is prepared to carry out hip replacement surgery for the benefit of the elderly.
I turn to the vexed question of personal social services, on which spending has increased since 1979 from £436 million to £1·5 billion. Whichever way those figures are considered, they are evidence of a caring society and caring Government and not of reduced expenditure.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Dr. Blackburn: We have been told this evening by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, on behalf of the alliance, that an alliance administration would increase the death grant to £250. One of the blessings of the Social Security Bill is that in future a widow will receive a tax-free lump sum of £1,000 on the death of her husband. She will receive that sum at a time of great emotion and distress and it will be a considerable blessing.
It is critical, as a matter of honour, that if policies on the care of the elderly throughout this land are to be presented in this House, they must operate within the bounds of arithmetic. I find it difficult to believe that the Opposition's proposal would work within the bounds of arithmetic, when we know, and have spelt out loud and

clear, that the costings are £5·6 million, not £3·3 million. It is a deceit above words to present that sort of policy to our people.
The British people should applaud the work that has been undertaken by the Government to produce a rate of inflation of 2·5 per cent. When the pages of history are written, we shall find that this has been one of those periods of administration which has brought the greatest blessing possible to pensioners, the sick, the aged and the infirm. I salute the Minister on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House will not take it amiss if I refer to a former colleague who passed away this morning. He was a champion of pensioners and an extremely effective holder of the Chair. I am speaking of the late Lord Dick Crawshaw. Like many of my colleagues, I was extremely sad and I disapproved when he changed to the SDP, but may it be always to his memory and credit that we never heard him criticise his former colleagues. To the end he remained a friend to many of us and he is a loss to Parliament.
I shall raise three issues. First, what are the Department's projections for the likely number of elderly people in the 1990s through to 2020? We hear that the latest projections are horrific, which is why I am rather against ya-boo politics on this issue. We shall face a most appalling problem over the next three decades. We shall somehow have to carry a burden of rising expectations and increased numbers of elderly people.
One way of coping with the position is through the respite allowance, and the Minister for Social Security mentioned it in his opening remarks. What money is involved in the respite allowance? The respite allowance is one of the most cost-effective and humane ways of helping people care for others. Many people wish to remain in their homes until their late 80s or early 90s and they should be helped to do so. That often means that some holiday and rest must be given to the carers. Therefore, what money is available?
Secondly, I recommend to the Ministers the section of the Crossman diaries—it seems to be fashionable to dig up all sorts of texts from them—which deals with what Dick Crossman did when the Cypriot nurse came to the Department to spill the beans on the Ely hospital. It deals with the whole issue of Ely, Farley and South Ockendon, and how the Minister of the day got a great deal of money from the Cabinet by highlighting what at first looked like a scandal, but which was a genuine, serious situation.
In some areas our care of the elderly mentally ill is back in the mid-1960s. Some hospitals are extremely good and much excellent work has been done in building and nursing. However, some places—I shall not name them because I am not after headlines or publicity — have returned to mid-1960s standards. I think that the Department knows exactly the sort of institution about which I am speaking where the conditions that prevailed in the mid-1960s which so upset Dick Crossman prevail now in the mid-1980s. Every Scot who has been watching the programmes on Lennoxtown castle will know the problems there. I am not highlighting them for political advantage. Indeed, the staff there have worked extremely hard.
The Minister has just entered the Chamber, and I was commending that he should read the sections of the


Crossman diaries that refer to Ely, Farley and South Ockendon because the conditions in some hospitals have returned to the standards of the 1960s. I can give an example of that. Mrs. Hendry, the wife of the distinguished Edinburgh engineer Professor Hendry, is the chairman of a number of boards and is extremely rational. She knows of many cases where patients have been given back the wrong false teeth. That is a very human situation and simply reflects the shortage of staff in certain areas. What is the Government's thinking on that?
Thirdly, I come to the question of dental charges. I had a word with the Secretary of State who courteously said that either he would write to me or that notes would be provided for the reply. The problem is that more and more dentists are having to make judgments, not on clinical matters, but on the extent to which some of their patients can afford to pay for their treatment. The difficulty is that there are all sorts of anomalies in relation to the elderly. One is that there are charges for dental X-rays but not for X-rays for other parts of the body. The Department is probably seized of the problems put by the General Dental Practitioners Association and others.
Another problem relates to new materials. What does the Department think of the provision of expensive new dental materials? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is present. He will recollect that the Secretary of State for Scotland said to the Scottish Grand Committee that we should understand that demands on health care were infinite and that one could never satisfy everyone. I accept what he said, especially about raising expectations. The truth is that in dentistry, as in medicine, many sophisticated and, therefore, expensive materials can be used. Has the Department a philosophy on the extent to which new materials are a priority and should be provided, particularly for the comfort of the elderly?
I promised to make a short speech. I have put my points and I should welcome either a letter or answers in the reply.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Opposition motion complains about the break of the link with earnings in the system for uprating state pensions. The Opposition are seeking to bring us back to the debates which we have had over many years as to whether upratings should be based on earnings or prices.
I support the Government's philosophy and what they are doing. Their solution to the finance of old age is different from what the Opposition have in mind. The Government propose that pensioners should be able to rely on two sources of income. The first is a basic income guarantee, which is not means-tested, but is every citizen's right; and the second is a variable earnings-related retirement benefit to enable people to retire in the standard of life to which they have become accustomed during working life through an occupational pension scheme or some other form of private provision for retirement. That philosophy is right, and we should build on it.
The question inevitably arises whether the occupational pension schemes and other private schemes are sufficiently good. They are in the public sector, because it has established an extremely generous earnings-related retirement scheme. Indeed, some people think that in some respects public sector schemes are too generous, but I shall

not go into that now. Public sector schemes cost about 20 per cent. on top of the remuneration for the people in work. Therefore, if comparable benefits are to accrue in the private sector, we must look for contributions of about 20 per cent. on top of earnings, and possibly even more. That level of contribution is not flowing into the private sector at present, so inevitably there will continue to be disappointments and inadequacies for those in private sector schemes.
The National Association of Pension Funds survey for 1984 contains some interesting figures. Of course, it deals only with schemes that belong to the association. It says that for non-contributory schemes the overall average employer's contribution was 17·24 per cent. for staff schemes — not too bad — but only 6·83 per cent. for works schemes, and 16 per cent. for combined schemes. For contributory schemes, the corresponding figures are 11·95 per cent., 7·26 per cent. and 10·48 per cent. Those figures are not sufficient to produce the sort of income that people are entitled to expect in retirement. The result, sadly, is that a large number of people are dependent in retirement on supplementary benefit. They cannot stand on their own feet and we have to help them to a minimum standard of living through supplementary benefit, or housing benefits of one sort or another for those who inevitably find themselves over-housed when they have finished their working lives.
As I have said in the House before, 14 million people are now dependent on means-tested benefits. That is a large number of people who cannot rely on their savings and resources. It is something to which the Government must address their mind urgently if they are to justify their philosophy—which I believe to be right—to the electors.
Many people do not belong to occupational pension schemes, or belong only to schemes not as generous as those analysed in the survey. I wish to draw attention to the fact that a substantial element of members of occupational pension schemes get a raw deal. I refer to the early leavers—people who, for one reason or another, change their jobs during their careers. I calculated some years ago, and the figures are likely still to be true, that when someone who has been in full-time employment with a generous occupational pension scheme changes his job in mid-career he is likely to be writing off an asset that is at least as valuable as his house. That is a very large sacrifice to better oneself by changing employment. Ironically, the more generous the scheme, the more that is lost by changing jobs. That position has obtained for far too long. As a result, a large number of people reach retirement but are then unable to manage on their own resources.
I regret that the Government did not go through with their original intention to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme, making good the gap by turning over the current employers' contribution to national insurance—and preferably the employees' contribution also—to accumulate in an approved tax-exempt fund on the principle of money-purchase and proper funding. It was a mistake not to have had the courage to go through with that.
The money that goes into the pension schemes should be recognised as the employees' deferred pay. It is their money and they should not be deprived of it. It should flow either into a national pension scheme that would


invest it in Government indexed stocks on compound interest, or into one of the many approved schemes in the private sector.
In any event, occupational pension schemes will continue to play a very important part in providing retirement income. Whatever the position with the state scheme, we must pay attention to what is happening with private schemes; there are likely to be several million people in those schemes for the foreseeable future. Apart from the fact that not enough money is flowing into them to provide satisfactory benefits. the major deficiency that must be rectified is the shabby treatment of early leavers. There is still a great deal to be done in that area.
I know that recently the Government have made efforts and there has been some recognition of the problem, but on the best information that I can obtain from people who have access to the best data, I calculate that people who change their jobs are forfeiting at least £20 million every week from the assets that have accumulated on their accounts in their occupational penson schemes. We cannot allow that scandal to continue.
The suggestion that I hope that I shall be entitled to make in our debate on the Report stage of the Finance Bill is that an overpowering incentive should be given to occupational pension schemes to rectify that position through their tax treatment; I shall not try to develop that argument now. The real problem with the treatment of early leavers is the divided departmental responsibility in regard to occupational schemes. That was brought out in his presidential address to the actuaries by Professor Moore this year. Too many different Government Departments have responsibility in this area. The Treasury is concerned about the tax angle, the DHSS is interested in the schemes as an aspect of social security, and the Department of Employment is interested because of the implications for job mobility.
It is now 18 years since I made my first speech in the House on this subject. I am glad that we have made a little progress, but we have not yet done nearly enough for the members of occupational pension schemes who change their jobs. Present legislation will not bring them justice even in 40 years when it comes into full effect. In my opinion, and that of very many others, we cannot wait that long. Will the Secretary of State undertake to set up an inter-departmental review of the matter forthwith, with a view to publishing a White Paper before the end of the year?
If the Government, quite rightly, are to rely on private provision for retirement, the scandal of the schemes that give shabby treatment to early leavers must be put right. We cannot allow private citizens to forfeit more than £1,000 million of their savings each year simply because they have chosen — or been forced — to change their employment.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I take on board what the Minister for Social Security said in opening. No matter how robustly he tries to defend the Government's position, he offers no solution to the basic problem. The question of pensions and retirement must be looked at with entirely different eyes. People argue that one of the things that measures how much a society cares is how it treats its aged, its poor, its sick and its young.
When an average working class man retires, having worked for 50 years, or 45 years in the case of a woman,

he wants to enjoy the rest of his days by pursuing his own interests rather than those dictated by his employer. People should be able to look forward to their retirement. Men and women who have created the wealth of the nation by spending their working lives in industry should approach their retirement in a happy frame of mind.
Over the years — under successive Governments —millions of people have faced retirement with fear, apprehension and insecurity. Virtually overnight, they faced a dramatic fall in their living standards. The worries and concerns of such people are genuine. No matter how robustly the Minister defends the Government's position, he does not solve the problem.
I believe that our attitude to pensioners shows that we have an almost total contempt and disregard for what must be done. Britain is not an impoverished nation. It is a wealthy nation. It is said that Britain is the fifth wealthiest nation in the world. If the political will is there, there is no reason why we cannot remove that apprehension, fear, insecurity and, in many cases, the poverty that follows retirement.
When we consider the differences in the social classes, we find that those on the highest incomes, such as managers and directors of boards, who have accumulated wealth at the expense of those who produced it, find no difficulty, when their working life has ended, moving from one period to another. They move with the ease of a person moving from a non-smoking compartment to a smoking compartment in a train. We are not talking about the generality of retirement, pensions, and all the problems that people face. We are talking about working class people, many of whom cannot rely on an occupational pension because no provision was made for such a pension during their working life.
It is a scandal that Ministers of State—it does not matter which party is in government — bandy around figures and point to the performance of previous Governments rather than tackle the problem. This country's pensioners are fourth in the league made up of their comparable European counterparts. Pensions in this country are lower than in most European countries. It is a scandal that a wealthy country such as ours should ignore the plight of pensioners. It does no one any good to point to the performance of previous Governments.
Since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been consistent—whether my party has been in power or not —in advancing the arguments that I advance today. We must reconceive the whole question of pensions and people's entitlements. I do not just refer to pensions. However, that is the main purpose of the discussion. We must return to a system of tying pensions to national average earnings.
I impress upon the Minister that pensioners do not want handouts. They do not want grants that enable them to do this and that. Heating allowances may resolve a problem for a time. What a pensioner needs, and should have, is sufficient money in his pocket to get the things that he or she needs and which, in my view, he or she deserves. Pensioners created the wealth that we inherited. The Government have ignored that basic question.
There must be recognition of the rights of pensioners, not because they are becoming a powerful electoral group but because the aging population is living longer and, therefore, in the future the problems and burdens will be greater. I reject the prognosis of many people and the point mooted in the review that in future it will not be possible


to meet even the meagre amount of the state pension. It is an indictment of society to suggest that the pensions of the future will be in danger. There is no evidence that the private sector will make provision for retired people.
The Government have disregarded the important point that pensioners want in their pockets sufficient money to allow them to live a decent life, to have enough for food and clothing and to keep warm. Year after year, people weep crocodile tears about deaths from hypothermia when people die merely because they are cold. However, nothing has been done to eliminate that problem. Arbitrary figures are bandied about considering whether need exists. Meanwhile, people are dying. That is an indictment of society and of any Government who allow it to continue.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on what this means for present and future pensioners. The problem must be tackled. We must condition people to believe that retirement should be a period of pleasure when they can pursue the activities that they were previously denied. Retirement should be a happy time in their lives, not one burdened with its present difficulties. I hope that Government and Labour Members will take note of that point both during this debate and in the weeks and months ahead.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) feels, as I do—unlike the spokesman for the Opposition—that the welfare of pensioners is not and should not be made a party matter. It is a matter of caring and neither side of the House and no party in it has a monopoly on care for elderly people.
We all know of the propensity of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for throwing accuracy out the window, which matches the way he welcomes hyperbole in through the door. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so quickly left his place. Perhaps he has gone off to the confessional. Perhaps he is doing his sums, because that is certainly necessary. Perhaps he is even now apologising to the Leader of the Opposition for having dropped him in it on such a scale.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that pensioners today were worse off than when pensions began. I challenge that. When pensions began, a married couple was paid £2·10 a week. I am told that that would be worth about £24 today. This month, a married couple will receive a pension of £61·95.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry that the hon. Lady chose to make those uncharitable and foolish remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I am afraid that she did not listen to, or did not hear, what he said. According to the fruits of independent research—not my hon. Friend's figures—compared to the standard of living of the average worker, the pensioner is now worse off. My hon. Friend was, of course, as shocked as the hon. Lady to discover that.

Dame Jill Knight: That is simply the way that one reads the figures. I am going through the details to show why the pensioner today, thank God—and it is due to all parties and all people who have cared enough to try to help—is

very much better off than when pensions began—not as much as we would wish, but the pensioner is certainly better off.
When pensions began, there was no question of concessionary fares. There was no question of dietary allowance or heating additions. There was no question of help with the rates or social services help, which assists so many elderly people in need today. We must recognise that when pensions began the people receiving them would not have dreamed of the help which, rightly, would be made available to them in future years. One example is walking frames.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman has had quite a go already. I want to try to finish quickly because others wish to speak.
Other examples are wheelchairs, meals on wheels, day centres and hospital care. I speak with feeling because for some years I was a member of the health committee on a local authority. We pioneered the idea of sheltered housing for the elderly — a place where they could be given a home where there was a warden. All those benefits have been given, and they are undeniable. When one looks them in the face, one cannot possibly say that pensioners today are worse off than when pensions began.
A great deal of play has been made of the fact that people are waiting for hip operations. Very little play has been made of the fact that they are getting them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) gave the figure. To me, it is a wonderful thing that so many elderly people are able to walk without pain because of the advance of medical science. We should recognise that that must have changed their lives out of all recognition. I can think of many other operations, such as the glaucoma operation, which would not have been possible years ago. There is also help with drugs and prescriptions.
Sometimes I think that Opposition Members tend to believe that if everybody cannot have something free, we must not pretend that anyone has it free. I admire the speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am sorry that I am not able to tell him this to his face. With regard to dental charges for the elderly, he rightly made the reasonable comment that it seems crazy that one can have an X-ray of part of one's body for nothing, but if one has a mouth X-ray one has to pay. The reason why an X-ray is free is that it is carried out at a general hospital. It is possible for people to go along and have an X-ray in the dental section of a hospital. Certainly, in Birmingham we have a dental hospital where anyone can go and, without charge, have a necessary X-ray of his mouth. Elderly people who need dental care and who receive either supplementary benefit or housing benefit are exempt from all charges for dental treatment, which would include X-rays. Those who are just above supplementary benefit level can also claim exemption. Those things are important advances.
I must take the hon. Member for Oldham, West to task for some of the phrases that he flung out. He talked about handouts to taxpayers. That is a favourite phrase. I wish that he would understand that it is not a handout to a taxpayer; the taxpayer is merely allowed to keep a little more of his own money, which he has earned by the sweat of his brow. Labour Members talk about handouts as if a mythical hand has gone into the national till and given


the taxpayers money. In fact, our measures mean that taxpayers may keep more of their own money. That is a very real difference.
The hon. Gentleman also shot out a phrase beloved of many Labour spokesmen — "the means test". He said that Labour would abolish the demeaning means test. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have taken that fully on board. Abolishing the means test means giving money to anyone who holds out his hand. When spending public money one has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that their money is paid out only to those who need it. Without a means test, we cannot know who needs it. I am very much against giving public money to people who do not need it. It is salutary to know that the Labour party would abolish the means test. In real terms, that means that to anyone who asks, cash must be given. If that system comes back—God help us if it does—there will be the biggest forest of palms from here to the middle east.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that pensioners should share in the increasing prosperity of this country. We all agree with that, but I doubt whether there will be any increasing prosperity if the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are implemented because inflation would immediately be pushed upwards again which would be the worst thing possible for pensioners. The hon. Member for Oldham, West seems content to offer glittering prizes but is not prepared to reckon the cost of those prizes, even to those who will receive them.
I thought that the argument about the change in the method of calculation had already been won and I was amazed to hear it raised again. The Labour Government changed the method of forecasting pension increases in 1976. They said that pension increases would be based on what they thought—not what they knew, because they did not know the rate of inflation might be. In so doing, they saved themselves a handy £500 million. Moreover, that method of calculation proved wrong five times out of seven. Do Labour Members think that we should stick to a method which clearly does not work? We might as well bring in the crystal ball or the ouija board or pull the petals off a daisy. Even that would be better than sticking to a method which has proved wrong more often than right.
Surely it is better to give increases, albeit small ones, several times a year to keep pensions up with any rise in the cost of living. There were plenty of complaints in the House and outside when pensions were increased only once a year, but when the Government moved to a system allowing several increases per year they provoked a wave of fury because pensions were not increased by £3 or £4 three or four times a year. It would be nice to be able to do that, but at least we can keep pensioners abreast and, one hopes, a little ahead of any rise in inflation.
Whether we can honour promises to pensioners in future years is not a matter of will. It is a sad fact that in the future there will be far fewer people working than in the pensioner age group, due to population changes. That is where the worry arises and we must never let pensioners down by promising something that we cannot provide.

Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Lady agree that, regardless of how many people are working, through modern technology and so on, wealth is still being produced at higher levels than it was? Is not the redistribution of wealth rather than its creation the problem?

Dame Jill Knight: I agree that increased technology and so on should provide more wealth. However, there are Kill fewer people in the working age group. That is the root of the trouble.
I am glad strongly to support the Government's amendment. Although we would wish to do more, what has been done should be recognised.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Listening to some Conservative Members makes a question spring to mind. If the Government are so caring and humane an Administration, why are the electorate so deeply disenchanted with the Conservative party? Many pensioners I know would not respond favourably to the speeches about their problems that we have heard.
I have to disagree mildly with some of the things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who spoke about pensioners being happy if they are protected and their interests promoted. I have much more sympathy with what Charles de Gaulle said about the old. He said that age is a shipwreck, and I agree with that. We have to protect and promote the interests of the elderly as best we can, and that might mean that those of us in employment have to make a greater contribution.
I represent thousands of pensioners who live in appallingly inadequate housing conditions. About 6,000 public sector houses in my constituency are acknowledged by the council to be suffering from damp, and many pensioners live under these circumstances. Much more needs to be done for them.
I have a question for the Minister about a constituency case. An elderly constituent of mine, a widow, recently visited her daughter and son-in-law in Holland where, unfortunately, she suffered a heart attack and died. Her daughter in Holland is on the Dutch equivalent of our social welfare. She wanted to send her mother's body hack to Greenock as her mother had always expressed the heartfelt desire to be buried alongside her late husband in Greenock. The remaining daughter in Greenock, who is also on supplementary benefit, and the rest of the family managed to raise about £950 to bring the mother's body back for burial. They were £310 short, so they applied to the local DHSS for an urgent needs payment.
As I said several times in Committee on the Social Security Bill, I have great respect for the managers of the two local DHSS offices in my constituency at Greenock and Port Glasgow. I also respect the hard work clone on the whole courteously and unflaggingly by their officials. However, in this tragic case the request for an urgent needs payment was turned down. The Dutch authorities have said to the daughter in Vlissingen in Holland and to the daughter in Greenock in Scotland that if the local Member of Parliament can provide documentary proof that the British system has turned down the application they will try to help the family to meet the shortfall of £310.
I appeal to the Minister to intervene in this case. I have written to the manager of the local office, Mr. Andrews, in the hope that the local adjudicator will consider again the request for payment. The family is prepared somehow to save the money rather than go to the Dutch authorities. I hope that our authorities can provide the family with the £310 and take away the stigma that has besmirched the old lady's dying wish that she be buried alongside her husband.
There is a great need for more sheltered housing for my elderly constituents. Recently I attended the opening of a sheltered housing complex that is sponsored and managed by the Church of Scotland. It is a first class establishment run by an excellent team. The people residing in that complex have their own flats. The regime is so humane and compassionate that in two cases elderly people have living with them disabled children who are themselves well into middle age. The provision of sheltered housing needs to be extended throughout the country but particularly in areas such as mine where, according to official figures, about 33,000 people, or 42·9 per cent. of my constituents, are living on or below the supplementary benefit level.
Another important issue with which the Minister is familiar concerns the problems inflicted on pensioners by spells of exceptionally severe weather. Some months ago I asked the Minister how many single payments had been made to claimants in Scotland under the regulations. At that time the figure was 57,000, but the Minister said that many more claims were being processed. I have another question down to be answered next week. I suspect that the total will be much higher than the interim figure.
Many people, particularly pensioners, have complained to me about the difficulties that are associated with applying for exceptionally severe weather payments. That applies particularly to pensioners who are still buying coal from what might be called itinerant coal dealers.
I sincerely hope that the heating additions for spells of exceptionally severe weather will be improved to avoid the humiliation that so often surrounds applications for single payments of this kind.
Many other areas need to be discussed, but my immediate concern relates to the problems that are faced by my constituent. I shall be deeply grateful if the Minister will take on board that serious problem.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been an interesting debate. At the beginning of her remarks the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to a very unusual concept in politics, from which issues such as pension levels are apparently excluded. Politics are, more than anything else, about choices. The choices that have been made by this Government are at the heart of this debate. The hon. Lady also said—and I agree entirely with her—that what has been done by this Government ought to be recognised. That is the purpose of our motion and of the speeches that have been made by Opposition Members.
One of the greatest achievements of the past decade was the recognition of the universal poverty that exists among so many elderly people. The tragedy of the last few years has been the slow but steady progress towards the return of that considerable poverty. A major contribution towards it so far has been the break in the link between earnings and pensions and the steady cut in housing benefit.
Another major contribution that the Government are making in this direction is their changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational pensions. It is too little recognised that the Government are cutting, indeed halving, the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme, along with the basic pension. Furthermore, by lowering the standards of the state

scheme the Government are also lowering the standards that are required to be met by occupational pensions, thereby — in one fell swoop — worsening the pension entitlement of everybody, whatever kind of pension scheme they happen to be in.
The cost and the problems involved in breaking the link between pensions and earnings are so great that in time they will have offset even the increase that is due to the state earnings-related pension scheme, as it was originally designed. Therefore, the total pension — the earnings-related supplement and the basic pension itself — will gradually fall back to a level that is no higher than that of the basic pension today. However, as the Government have introduced proposals, which we expect shortly to be returned to this House, substantially to reduce the state earnings-related pension scheme, the total pension —basic and earnings-related alike—will be substantially less over a period than today's basic pension.
The example that we give — which the Government have never contradicted, or argued with, or questioned, apart from saying that to dwell on the details of the figures would be tedious—is that a 16-year-old who starts work after the Social Security Bill becomes law, who never has a sustained period of unemployment and who never has a sustained period of sickness will receive a pension when he retires that is only half that which he would have received before that Bill became law.
I refer to a young person with a full employment record. Those who are unfortunate enough, for whatever reason, not to have a full employment record will receive even less than the half pension to which they will be entitled under the Government's proposals. Those with low earnings at some period during their working lives will have their pension disproportionately affected and disproportionately reduced, because the Government have decided that the pension should be calculated no longer over the best 20, 30 or 40 years but over a full working life. That inexorably means that far more pensioners will be dependent on the equivalent of supplementary benefit in future than are dependent on it today. Today 1·7 million pensioners are so dependent alongside the 4·2 million receiving housing benefit.
The Minister talked about the record of the previous Labour Government, a topic of which Ministers are especially fond. They would much rather talk about the Labour Government's record than about their own. I believe that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) holds the record in this respect, having dragged in and attacked the Labour Government of 1947 on one occasion. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman rather glossed over the record of his own Government. As he always does, the hon. Member for Ealing, North dragged in the fact that the Christmas bonus was stopped at the loss of £20 to pensioners over a period of five years.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That was a lot of money at the time.

Mrs. Beckett: Indeed it was. However, as the hon. Lady would have known if she had been present earlier, it is rather less than the £570 which the Government have taken from pensioners by breaking the link with earnings.
In his enthusiasm, the Minister forgot that when the Government delayed the pension uprating for two weeks in 1980 the cost to a pensioner couple was £12·30 and in 1984, when they delayed the uprating by a further week,


the cost was £2·80. I recall the then Minister of State justifying that on the ground that, if the date was not changed, in 250 years' time there would be two pension increases in one year. At the time, we did not think that that was a strong argument but it was the best that the former Minister of State could do other than attack the Labour Government's record.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) who mentioned that heating allowances under this Government are running at record levels. So, of course, are fuel costs. These have been increased by the deliberate decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise money by putting a tax on fuel to give benefits to the wealthiest through tax cuts.
The Minister took credit for the increase in spending on social services only to be shot down in flames by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who said that the Government continually criticise and try to undermine the extent of spending on social services in Labour-controlled authorities across the country on the grounds that they are spending too much. The Minister forgot to mention that the Government's contribution to social services expenditure has fallen — if I recall correctly — by over 10 per cent. as rate support grant has been slashed. The Minister also forgot to mention how the Government refused the Opposition's pleas to exempt pensioners from what he recognised at the time was likely to be the higher cost of glasses under the Health and Social Security Act 1984.
The Minister forgot to mention the substantial increase in prescription charges. There was a little talk earlier about clear pledges. If ever there was a clear pledge, it was the one given by the Prime Minister in 1979 not to increase prescription charges. That pledge was almost as clear as the Prime Minister's 1983 pledge not to attack the state earnings-related pension scheme.
The Minister barely mentioned housing benefit in his glowing account of the Government's record. Perhaps he did not do that because between April 1983 and November 1985 the Government saved £233 million in housing benefit during which period 600,000 pensioners lost all entitlement to housing benefit. That is not surprising, as pensioners are the largest group relying on housing benefit. There are 4 million pensioner households in all.
In the Social Security Bill the Government are making room for further substantial losses in housing benefit. Using the Government's figures from the technical annexe, it appears that an average pensioner couple paying average rent will receive nearly £3 a week less housing benefit than they would have had to set against the same rent in 1982 before the last series of cuts began. That is due to changes in the taper. It has been calculated that 650,000 pensioner households will lose as a result of the proposed changes. Up to £2 a week will be lost by 450,000; 110,000 will lose up to £3 a week; 90,000 will lose £3 or more a week and 30,000 of those will lose more than £5 a week. Some 140,000 will cease to be entitled to any housing benefit.
All that will happen before the proposal to deduct 20 per cent. of rates and water rates from those in receipt of supplementary benefit. If that is added to the taper changes to which I have just referred, nearly 3 million pensioner households will lose out through the Government's proposals. Up to £1 a week will be lost by 1,150,000, and a similar number will lose £2 a week,

270,000 will lose up to £3 a week and 170,000 will lose £3 or more a week, of which some 30,000 will lose over £5 a week.
I am sure that those figures, like the figures on basic pensions, are a little tedious for the Government, but they are of some considerable interest and significance to pensioners. Quite apart from that, the introduction of a capital limit will mean that some 250,000 pensioners will lose their entitlement to housing benefit. Again, we are seeing a further £450 million or so cut, saved or lost from housing benefit by the actions of this caring Government, praised so heartily by their Back Benchers during the debate.
That brings me directly to the calculations that the Minister claimed to have done on various issues, including housing benefit, on the costing proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member For Oldham, West. It is only right to say straight away that the Minister has costed not the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend but some wholly fictitious package of his own. The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who was here and was presumably listening to the Minister, had the gall to talk about deceit in the context of my hon. Friend's remarks and what we are setting before the country. There are few things more deceitful than fabricating a set of proposals, adding up the cost and then claiming that one's opponents are responsible for proposals that are not theirs. It should be made clear that the Minister costed his proposals, not ours.
However, let me ask a question on the Minister's proposals. How much of the cost of his proposals is due to restoring cuts in housing benefit already made under the Government to which I have referred? How much is due to the cuts that are being made under the Social Security Bill · cuts which the Government are proposing to restore in this place in a week's time, having lost in another place, perhaps even, it is rumoured, on the day of the royal wedding?
We had some interesting information and examples recently of the Government's costings. The Minister had the gall to take the credit, in the face of the decision by the European Court, for the decision to extend the invalid care allowance to married women, something that they were forced into and have steadfastly been refusing to do for seven years. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) would cease interrupting. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend give the costs, and he can read them in the Official Report.
For the past several years the Minister has told us that the cost of extending the invalid care allowance to married women would be £85 million. Now that he is going to do it he tells us that it is £55 million, which I estimate is slightly over 35 per cent. less than his original claim. If we deduct 35 per cent. from what the Government claim to be the cost of our proposals, that might be more accurate.
But the main point and the main problem of the debate is that there is poverty among the elderly and that that poverty is increasing and will be substantially worsened by the Government's plans. Under this Government, poverty has increased, but that increase pales into insignificance beside what is in store for the elderly under the policies likely to be brought back before the House before we rise for the summer.
The motion calls for priority for pensioners. It calls for a reversal of the tax changes and the concessions given to


the wealthiest people in Britain and for that reversal to be done in order to give priority to pensioners. The Minister appears to say nothing to that argument. All he says is that he has costed our proposals—although he has actually costed his own—and he argues that reversing the tax concessions and changes would not be sufficient to pay for what we would give to pensioners.
If the Under-Secretary argues that our costings are wrong, although we do not accept that, and reversing the £3,600 million given to the wealthiest 5 per cent. of people in Britain every year by the Government's tax changes would not provide the pension increases that we claim, I challenge him to tell the House what pension increase that would fund and then tell us why the Government will not do it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): In the middle of the debate, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) paid a generous and warm tribute to Lord Crawshaw, who died last evening. I believe that the whole House would wish to echo that. He was a kind and gentle man who many of us will recall with some affection. He will be sadly missed by his many friends in this place and along the Corridor.
I am grateful to the Opposition for bringing this important subject before the House, albeit on a motion which is bizarre in its selectivity. We have heard yet again the old, familiar, unsustainable and unrealistic cry that the Government are not doing enough and that they do not care. It is the old story from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his colleagues, and we have grown accustomed to it. That charge is neither accurate nor sustainable.
When moving the motion in the Newcastle-under-Lyme address, as we may come to think of it, the hon. Member for Oldham, West illustrated yet again one of the principal facets of his delightful character—the fact that he is unable to resist temptation. Not for him self-denial in words or expenditure, whether it be expenditure from his own pocket or that of taxpayers. He set out once again a catalogue of electoral offers for the next general election.
I do not doubt the Opposition's genuine wish to help the elderly. We have the same ambition. I am beginning, however, to suspect that the hon. Gentleman will offer anything on any occasion to any group for any purpose at any time if he thinks that that will buy a vote or two. One of the hon. Gentleman's characteristics—we enjoy it — is that he always overbids. He is the man who cannot say no. If somebody wants it, in the programme it goes, and he hopes that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) does not notice or cannot add up. If the Labour party was ever able to carry out its plans, it would have its hands in the taxpayers' pockets more often than the taxpayers themselves.
The House will be stunned to learn that the hon. Member for Oldham, West visited Newcastle-under-Lyme yesterday, where he added to his previously extensive spending plans. Among other things, he committed himself yesterday to abolishing all prescription charges.

Mr. Meacher: Not immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Read what I said.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman intervenes before he hears what I am about to say. I suspect that he has a guilty conscience. I was about to say that it was not clear how rapidly he would abolish prescription charges, but it was clear that they would be abolished. When and if the hon. Gentleman gets an opportunity to do that, and if he does it, I hope that he will bear in mind that it will not help the elderly, for they are already exempt from prescription charges.

Mr. Meacher: Why does the hon. Gentleman mention it then?

Mr. Major: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why if he gives me a moment. The change would help the hon. Gentleman and me, for we would no longer have to pay, and £135 million would be lost to the National Health Service. It would be a redistribution from the NHS to middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman and me, and it would come courtesy of the Labour party. I hope that pensioners, upon whom that £135 million could usefully be spent, will enjoy that piece of regressive redistribution to which the hon. Gentleman so rashly committed himself when addressing the electors of Newcastle-under-Lyme yesterday. It is the hon. Gentleman's equivalent of the Humber bridge. I suppose that we might be grateful that it was not even more expensive.
Of course, the loss of revenue—

Mr. Max Madden: Tell us what you are doing.

Mr. Major: I am responding to the debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend the Minister of State set out what we are doing. It is my responsibility and my intention to respond to the debate, if the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will listen.
The loss of revenue is apparently to be financed by pouring back what the hon. Member for Oldham, West offensively calls in his motion
tax hand-outs to the most privileged sections of society.
That pot of gold, which the hon. Gentleman treats as if it were two loaves and five fishes because he is always extending it, will need to stretch to infinity as the hon. Gentleman has already spent very nearly £6 billion of the £3·6 billion he is referring to.
The hon. Gentleman's proposals to increase pensions, child benefit and the long-term scale rate for the unemployed amount to £4·6 billion. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) tried to wriggle, but the figures are clearly set out in Hansard. When the hon. Gentleman and his advisers crawl over them, they will find that our costings are right.
If other benefits, which are presently at the same level as retirement pension — widows benefit and invalidity benefit—were to be increased by the same amount the cost would rise to £5·6 billion or thereabouts. Of course, abolishing the yield from prescription charges, when and if the hon. Gentleman does it, adds another £135 million.
The hon. Gentleman will have to look much further than the tax clawback to fund all that. The hon. Member for Derby, South rallied strongly. However, she did not rally strongly enough to cover the gaping gap of about £2 billion.
The point to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not refer, which was put to him clearly by my hon.


Friend the Minister, is that unless the means— tested benefits levels are increased in line, the effect of a large increase in retirement pension would be to float large numbers of people off supplementary benefit and housing benefit. They would then gain little in cash terms from the hon. Gentleman's proposal. His spending propositions would benefit the better-off pensioners and not the poorest pensioners. Therefore, unless he is prepared to accept the realistic assumption that we set out—he may wish to study it at leisure—he will see that he is not benefiting those to whom he has held himself out as a benefactor.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), speaking for the Social Democratic part of the alliance — the hon. Member for the Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was keeping a close eye on him but he has fled since the hon. Gentleman sat down — referred to the death grant. The Social Democratic party's proposals, as set out in an amendment in the other place, are to pay a death grant automatically. According to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, it would be £250. According to his noble Friend Lord Kilmarnock, it would be paid at rates to be set in regulations which may differ for different geographical areas. The noble Lord appears intent on reinventing the death grant equivalent of exceptionally severe weather payments.
The essence of the point is that the hon. Gentleman said quite clearly that our propositions on the death grant were ill defined. That is not so and the hon. Gentleman will see that clearly if he studies the position. We propose that funeral expenses will be available from the social fund automatically to people on income-related benefits and will be paid quickly and, equally important, without intrusion or means testing at the time of death. That may have been a surprise to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place, but it has been our proposition since the time of the Green Paper.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also referred to the community charge, the 20 per cent. contribution in rates and the Government's position on that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman genuinely expected me to respond at length upon that subject tonight. I am pleased to tell him that he was entirely right. I have no intention of disappointing him. He must be patient on that point for a little longer.

Mr. Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Major: I will not give way because there are many points still to be covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) raised the question of the level of contribution flowing into the private sector pension provision which he felt was insufficient. I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest and persistence in this area of occupational pensions. I must remind him, however, that we tackled the early-leaver problem by tackling transfer arrangements. I am sure that he will recognise that and I know that he would wish us to go further, but he would be wise to see how the transfer regulations, which came into effect only on 1 January, work out in practice. I give him the assurance that we shall review the regulations carefully in the light of our proposals. I hope that he will welcome that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of important issues on dental care and respite charges. My

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said from a sedentary position that we would consider the issues and write to the hon. Gentleman. I undertake to do that at an early date.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a further point, and a critical one in terms of the debate. He referred to the number of pensioners for whom we will need to care in future. In doing so, he asked for figures. I shall write to him with more detailed figures, but at present we have 9·5 million pensioners and we shall have 9·8 million in 1995. There will be 10 million in 2005 and 11·1 million in 2015. Even more critical is the fact that the age profile of pensioners is becoming higher all the time. Between 1981 and 2011 the growth in the number of pensioners aged 65 and above will be 7 per cent. It will be 24·6 per cent. for those aged 75 and above and 96.3 per cent. for those aged 85 and above. That is a staggering problem for us to deal with in future.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised a specific and distressing problem that is faced by one of his constituents. I shall be happy to examine the case urgently. I shall write to him, or see him to discuss the matter, as soon as I possibly can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to the greater certainty of the uprating mechanism. I agree with her that it is a material advantage to what it followed. The lottery of the forecast method that we have endured was inaccurate five years out of seven and clearly unsatisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) observed correctly that spending on the National Health Service has risen year upon year. He referred specifically to the capital building programme, which was decimated when the hon. Member for Oldham. West was a member of the previous Labour Government. The programme has been improved substantially in recent years and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined that it will continue to be improved. About £2,000 a minute is spent on capital expenditure on the NHS day in and day out.
A considerable amount has been said in recent months about the increase in the single person's pension. There is nothing novel about uprating being linked to price movement. The contraction of inflation is of immense value to everyone. Above all perhaps, it is of immense value to those who are on fixed incomes or relatively low incomes, as are many pensioners. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, the 40p increase is an interim measure as we move the date of uprating from November to April so that it coincides each year with tax and budgetary changes. I doubt whether there is one hon. Member who has not at some time been asked why pensioners must wait six months for their increase when tax changes occur swiftly. That is one of the principal reasons for seeking to align the dates. The move should be a matter of welcome and nothing else.
When the inflation measurement fell to 1·1 per cent., there were three options— pay nothing, pay more, or pay inflation proofing. We thought that the last option was right, and it was what was anticipated. It costs over £400 million in a full year, and it follows a 7 per cent. increase last November that cost about £2 billion. The increase was well above the inflation rate at that time. It precedes a further uprating announcement that my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make in the autumn. The counterpoint to this modest cash increase is the level of price restraint, which is critical.
It may be thought from what I have said that the Opposition's motion has little merit. I believe that it has no merit. It puts in what was better left out and it leaves out what was better left in. There is no mention whatever of the improved benefits or of the virtues of low inflation. There is no acknowledgement of the services that remain free to supplementary pensioners and no recognition of the growth of personal social services. There is no reference to the rising number of district nurses, home helps, geriatricians and others. The motion is stuffed with assertion. The Government's record is—

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 293.

Division No. 262]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Guy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alex


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Ewing, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Anthony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gould, Bryan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gourlay, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Clay, Robert
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David Gordon
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cohen, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Conlan, Bernard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)





Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Lamond, James
Radice, Giles


Leadbitter, Ted
Randall, Stuart


Leighton, Ronald
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Redmond, Martin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Loyden, Edward
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McGuire, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Michie, William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert


Nellist, David
Welsh, Michael


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, James


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Don Dixon and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Derek Fatchett.


Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Alexander, Richard
Bruinvels, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Butcher, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, William
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Best, Keith
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blackburn, John
Cockeram, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Critchley, Julian


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen






Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


Galley, Roy
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mather, Carol


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodhart Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Moore, Rt Hon John


Ground, Patrick
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Harris, David
Onslow, Cranley


Harvey, Robert
Osborn, Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Porter, Barry


Hayward, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Heddle, John
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hickmet, Richard
Renton, Tim


Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Hind, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hirst, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holt, Richard
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rost, Peter


Howard, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunter, Andrew
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Silvester, Fred





Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spencer, Derek
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watson, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Whitfield, John


Stokes, John
Whitney, Raymond


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Terlezki, Stefan
Woodcock, Michael


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 124.

Division No. 263]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amess, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, W. S.


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Benyon, William
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blackburn, John
Cockeram, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Eggar, Tim






Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lester, Jim


Fletcher, Alexander
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Major, John


Galley, Roy
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mather, Carol


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gregory, Conal
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steven


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Osborn, Sir John


Harvey, Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Pollock, Alexander


Hawksley, Warren
Porter, Barry


Hayes, J.
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Powley, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Henderson, Barry
Renton, Tim


Hickmet, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hirst, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Holt, Richard
Rost, Peter


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Howard, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)





Squire, Robin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Waddington, David


Steen, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitfield, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Terlezki, Stefan
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Woodcock, Michael


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Tony Durant and


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Francis Maude.




NOES


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Guy
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Hancock, Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Blair, Anthony
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Lambie, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cartwright, John
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clelland, David Gordon
McGuire, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Martin, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Meadowcroft, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Crowther, Stan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Penhaligon, David


Eadie, Alex
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Radice, Giles


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Faulds, Andrew
Robertson, George






Rogers, Allan
Straw, Jack


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wareing, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. James Wallace and


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its achievement in increasing the purchasing power of the national insurance retirement pension during a period when the number of pensioners has risen by nearly a million; endorses the Government's firm commitment fully to protect pensioners against rising prices; welcomes the continued development of health and community services for the elderly; recognises the Government's outstanding success in reducing the rise in prices to the lowest level for nearly twenty years; and notes that security in retirement would be the first casualty of the renewed and rapid inflation which would flow from the expenditure and taxation policies advocated by Her Majesty's Opposition.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mather.]

Pesticides

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That the draft Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
These regulations implement the powers in section 16(2) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. They have been drafted after extensive consultations with all the interests affected. Hon. Members will know that my Department, on behalf of the six Departments responsible for these regulations, issued a consultative document in November last year. Nearly 1,500 copies were sent out by my officials to interested groups and individuals. They also met many representative organisations. These draft regulations are the combined result of the expressed wishes of Parliament and of those consultations.
I shall now describe the main features of the draft regulations and explain at what date they come into operation.
Draft regulation 3, which comes into operation on 6 October, covers the pesticides to be controlled. Broadly speaking, they are the same as currently covered by the pesticides safety precautions scheme: pesticides used in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, food storage, public health and hygiene, wood preservation and masonry treatment. From 1 July 1987, this scope will be expanded to include antifouling paints. This is a major departure and one which I hope will be welcome to all who are concerned for the quality of the marine environment.
Draft regulation 4 prohibits the advertisement, sale, supply, storage and use of pesticides unless the pesticides have been approved under regulation 5 and a consent to the activity concerned has been made under regulation 6 and any condition of the approval and the consent have been complied with. I should like to stress this difference between approvals and consents. Approvals relate to the pesticides themselves. Consents relate to the activities of advertising, selling, using, and so on.
All these prohibitions will come into force on 6 October except for the first on advertising, which will come into force on 1 January 1987. This will allow companies time to modify their advertisements in the ways specified in schedule 1, which I shall explain shortly. Paragraph (5)(b)(i) of this draft regulation will also not come into force until 1 January 1988 and again, I shall explain this when I deal with use of pesticides.
Draft regulation 5, which will come into force on 6 October 1986 provides the essential features for the approval of pesticides. A notable improvement on the old arrangements is the move from the four to a three-phase approval system. This will bring us into line with the majority of registration procedures operating abroad and more importantly will do much more to facilitate enforcement. Another important new feature is the introduction of a system of automatic review of approved products, the intention of which is to ensure that approvals will not be reliant on data which do not meet modern standards.
I am pleased that, thanks in no small part to the cooperation given by the industry, and particularly the National Farmers Union, we have been able to develop a

system for encompassing within the approval arrangements what were previously fringe uses of pesticides, not controlled by the pesticides safety precautions scheme. This will be achieved by providing access to the approvals procedure for the growers of so called minor crops so that safe uses of pesticides on these crops, which for reasons of crop liability manufacturers are not able to recommend, may be approved as off-label use.
Draft regulation 6 must be read together with schedules to 4 to the regulations. It is in these parts of the statutory instruments that we have set out as fully as possible the general controls which we wish to impose on activities relating to pesticides. This is in contrast to the approvals system, which will provide the specific controls on each approved pesticide.
Regulation 6(a) and schedule 1 relate to advertisement. As with the prohibition on advertising, this consent and its conditions will come into force on 1 January 1987. So that all users of pesticides are fully informed of any risks associated with their use, manufacturers will be required to state in all advertisements the common names of the pesticidal ingredients and any specific warnings related to human health or the environment which are thought necessary by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in its assessment.
Draft regulation 6(b) and schedule 2 relate to sale, supply and storage. Ministers' consent to these activities will be given on 6 October and be subject to the general obligation in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2. Paragraph 1(2) will not apply until 1 January 1987 and this will be specified in the consent.
We propose the introduction of statutory support for standards of pesticide storage and the competence of all those who sell or store pesticides. This proceeds from the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1979 and recognises the considerable work already done by organisations such as the British Agricultural Standards, Inspection Scheme, in achieving high standards through self-regulation. Where possible we have built on these foundations.
Everyone engaged in the storage, sale or supply of professional pesticides will, in future, be obliged to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment and to be competent for the job they do.
We recognise that the nature and use of agricultural pesticides is perceived as posing a greater potential hazard to people — both as users or consumers — and the environment than other pesticides. The regulations accordingly contain a more detailed prescription, for certification of competence which must be obtained by those who store, sell or supply agricultural pesticides.
Draft regulation 6(c) and schedules 3 and 4 relate to use of pesticides, including aerial application. The consent on use will be made on 6 October and it will be subject to the conditions listed in both schedules 3 and 4. But I must stress that not all these conditions will come into force in October this year.
Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 provides a general obligation on all users of pesticides to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants and to safeguard the environment. Paragraph 4 requires all those who use pesticides in the course of their business to be competent and to have received adequate instruction and guidance in the safe, efficient and humane use of pesticides. These general obligations will come into force in October.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In paragraph 1 there is a requirement that people should take all reasonable precautions. One problem is that over the past 30 years manufacturers have produced all kinds of new pesticides, but the technology whereby the pesticide is dispensed through the spray nozzle has not changed. Are the reasonable precautions to require that the spray nozzles will be improved as well?

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed. If I may develop my explanation, calibration and the availability to consider new techniques will be covered. So there will be a constant updating of new techniques under the regulations.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend referred to persons using pesticides having adequate instruction. Will she confirm that those who will police the regulations will themselves have had sufficient instruction to be able to monitor them? As she will know, there is concern that although there is an obligation on the user to be adequately trained, there is not the same obligation on those who will carry out inspections through the Health and Safety Commission and other bodies. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.

Mrs. Fenner: We shall see that those operating through ADAS are certificated to the standard that we expect under the regulations.
From 1 January 1988, users will have to comply with the conditions of approval of the particular pesticide they are using, for example, any specified maximum dose rate or minimum time between use and harvest. Paragraphs 5 and 6 require contractors, including aerial sprayers, and persons under the age of 25 on 1 January 1989 who use agricultural pesticides to obtain recognised certificates of competence unless they are working under the direct and personal supervision of a certificate holder. These conditions will not come into force until 1 January 1989. From the same date there will be specific controls on the mixing of two or more pesticides — paragraph 2 of schedule 3—and the use of pesticides with adjuvants— paragraph 3.
I know that there has been some misunderstanding and hence concern about paragraph 3 of schedule 3 to our draft regulations. At present the more responsible adjuvant manufacturers notify their adjuvants to our Harpenden laboratory and they are cleared through the PSPS, including agreement on label recommendations and warnings, as though they were pesticides. Clearly we cannot continue to operate in this way under the regulations because adjuvants do not fall within the definition of pesticides in the Act. However, what we intend to do is continue to evaluate adjuvants notified to us and to publish a list of adjuvants which we have found to be suitable for use with approved pesticides. The conditions of approval of a pesticide referred to in paragraph 3 of schedule 3 will then include something to the effect that this pesticide may only be mixed with adjuvants which appear on the MAFF list and provided the conditions of use on the adjuvant label are complied with.
Users will not therefore be restricted to using only the adjuvants which appear on the pesticide label but will be free to use any from the MAFF list, provided there is no restriction or contra-indication on the adjuvant label.
Agricultural departments have recently issued a draft code of practice on the agricultural and horticultural use

of pesticides for public comment and discussions. Copies were made available, both in this House and in the other place, on Monday. [Interruption.] The code would be made under section 17 of the Act and has as its purpose the provision of practical guidance to agricultural arid horticultural users of pesticides as to how they can comply with the obligations imposed by the regulations. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult on this side of the House to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying because of the incessant chatter on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am anxious to hear the debate, too. Conversations should take place outside the Chamber.

Mrs. Fenner: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that in Committee hon. Members felt very strongly that as it was an enabling Bill there should be an opportunity to hear about the regulations. I hope that they will be patient while I try fully to cover them.
The draft code will eventually be laid before Parliament for approval, after the content of the draft has been considered and revised in the light of consultation and practical experience.
There have been many discussions on our proposals for controls over users of pesticides since they were published last year. They have met with general agreement and we have, I believe, a package which will raise standards and ensure the progressive establishment of a trained and competent work force. In this we have considered the needs of the industry and chosen a timetable for introduction that will not impose excessive burdens on costs.
There is general agreement that it is important that farmers keep records of pesticide use. Indeed, it is only common sense that for a farmer to use pesticides efficiently he should keep a record of what he has done. Records are also useful in identifying pollution problems. Farmers should not be concerned that in such cases their records would be used against them. On the contrary, if they have acted properly they will have nothing to fear, but their records could provide an indication that the approved conditions of use for a pesticide may need to he reviewed. For these reasons, the need to keep records has been strongly emphasised in the draft code of practice which supports the regulations. It was not thought necessary at this time to make record-keeping a statutory requirement. If, however, a farmer were to use pesticides irresponsibly and he did not keep records, he could be subject to a notice requiring him to keep records in future. Non-compliance with that notice would be an offence.
I can assure the House that if this non-statutory approach is not seen to be working well—if farmers do not keep appropriate records — there will be no hesitation about introducing a statutory requirement.
As I said, the consent on use will also be subject to the conditions set out in schedule 4 on aerial application. These repeat, in the main. the existing requirements already imposed on aerial operators by the Air Navigation Order 1985. They will all come into operation on 6 October this year.
Briefly, no one can apply a pesticide from the air unless he holds an aerial application certificate granted by the Civil Aviation Authority and there are controls on


operators relating to the advance notification of operations, the provision of warnings to passers-by, the conditions under which operations may be undertaken, the keeping of safe distances from surrounding property, the avoidance of spray drift and the keeping of records. Advance notification of operations has to be given to the Nature Conservancy Council, water authorities, the Chief Environmental Health Officer, neighbours, hospitals, schools or other institutions and to local beekeepers where there is a local spray warning scheme. Where appropriate, the agreement of the water authority must be obtained. A maximum wind speed for operations is prescribed and ground markers are required where necessary. Pilots of aircraft carrying out spraying operations must maintain a minimum height when flying over occupied buildings, gardens and roads, and they must maintain a mimimum horizontal distance from occupied buildings and their gardens, playgrounds, sports ground or buildings containing livestock and they must contain the pesticide to the land intended to be treated. [Interruption.] The draft code of practice of the agricultural and horticultural use of pesticides will provide guidance on the measurement of wind speed, prevention of spray drift, the advance warning of operations, warning signs to be displayed and the use of human ground markers.
Hon. Members will be aware that paragraph 2(a) of schedule 4, which relates to prior consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council where aerial operations are within three quarters of a nautical mile of a site of special scientific interest, does not quite reflect our intentions because there is an omission. The paragraph refers to section 29(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which relates to a small number of SSSIs where the Secretary of State has made an order. But the remaining SSSIs and national nature reserves are covered by section 28 of the Act. That is an omission and it is our intention to make use of the power granted by regulation 6 (c)(ii) of these regulations to include as a condition of the consent to the use of pesticides for aerial application that prior consultations are also required in relation to SSSIs covered by section 28. Thus [Interruption.] prior consultation with the NCC will be required for all SSSIs and national nature reserves within three quarters of one nautical mile of operations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As I recollect matters, there was an undertaking in a consultation paper issued by the Minister's Department that there would be a statutory requirement for consultation in the context of the NCC and sites of special scientific interest. Would it not be possible for the final regulations to be amended to include that in the obvious place rather than at three steps removed in some other way, in accordance with what I understand was the Department's original intention?

Mrs. Fenner: The Department's original intention is also fully covered in the requirement—[Interruption.]referring to section 29(1). We wish to ensure that that level of concentration also applies to those SSSIs and nature reserves covered by section 28 of the Act — [Interruption.] We are not making provision at three steps removed, we will make use of the power granted to us to introduce it in the way that I have described.
One issue that I must mention before I conclude is disclosure of information, which is the subject of draft regulation 8. From both sides of the House and from all quarters there have been increasing and ever-louder calls for greater disclosure of information. The Government have listened and responded. The Act under which the regulations will be made was the first piece of British legislation to be made under any Government which specifically provided for the release of information on pesticides to the public. In regulation 8 we have taken up the power provided in the Act to set out the ground rules for a disclosure of information system that will achieve that fine but essential balance between as much public access to data as possible and the need to protect from exploitation by competitors information which has a genuine and considerable commercial value —[Interruption.]
We already publish, or intend to publish, information on approvals granted, reviews to be carried out and their results, the results of our monitoring work on usage patterns, residue levels and wildlife effects, and the annual reports of the advisory committee. Under regulation 8, we shall make available our detailed evaluations of all the toxicity, environmental, efficacy and other test data on a pesticide as it receives provisional approval. Where a genuine query remains unanswered by the evaluation, we shall grant access to the study reports on which the evaluation is based. Before making available an evaluation, and still more before providing access to study reports, we shall do everything possible to ensure that the inquirer understands that if he publishes without permission or makes commercial use of the data, he will be committing a criminal offence under the Act.
That triple thread—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Triple thread?

Mrs. Fenner: —of published reports, availability of detailed evaluations and access to study reports is a sound and workable procedure which will provide the public with much useful information. The system will place the United Kingdom in the vanguard of authorities that are responding to the appeals for greater openness, and should be welcomed by the noisy Opposition as such.
I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Mr. Brynmor John: I was extremely disturbed by the Minister's speech, particularly because the Standing Committee that considered the Food and Environment Protection Bill of 1985 debated matters without strict party differences to try to produce the best legislation that it could. It was one of those rare Bills. Therefore, it is sickening for me to have to observe that the Committee was misguided and misled by the Government in those debates, and that we wasted our time on matters in which the Government have no serious interest and to which they are not deeply committed.
The Opposition will oppose the regulations. They do not deserve the approval of the House, and we shall try to ensure that they do not obtain it. That is not because we do not believe in effective pesticide regulations, but because these regulations will not be effective —[Interruption.] The Minister complained about noise. I should be grateful if she would obey her own strictures.
Some of our objections overlap in practice, but I shall set out the broad groups of objection. The first is the way in which the regulations were framed. The second is the probity of Ministers in introducing them in this form. The third is the obvious ways in which the regulations weaken existing protection, and the fourth is the fact that they omit matters that the discussion documents said would be included.
First, may I deal with the form of the regulations. In our debates in Committee, hon. Members on both sides pointed out the excessively general nature of the Bill's provisions. We were told that we should not worry, because the Bill was not an appropriate vehicle—to coin civil servants' jargon. We were told to wait for the detailed regulations; that would be the time to debate the matter and all our detailed queries would be answered. Here they are before us, but they do not include those or any other details. They are almost as general as the Act itself and just about as vague. Now, apparently. we have to wait for advertisements which are to be placed in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette, not to see what they propose for specific pesticides, as the consultative document said, but for the general controls themselves.
The Minister skirted over her part in Committee, particularly the ministerial assurances which she gave. For example, on 2 April, in columns 178–79 of Hansard, we were told that the details we then wanted to discuss were unsuitable for the Committee but that we would have plenty of time to do that when the regulations came along.
The regulations are no more precise than the Act itself and we have to wait for a further stage, not secondary legislation, but tertiary legislation, legislation by advertisement, not for, I repeat, one pesticide, but for general conditions for all pesticides, such as training in its use. Not only were we misled in Committee, but the regulations are now being framed in such a form — by adverts advertising them in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette—which will mean that many details of pesticide use will never be debated in the House, nor will they ever be subject to the scrutiny of the House.
Given the national interest in this subject, that is a disgrace. We are told, and I am sure the Minister w ill say the same, that that is just a matter of judgment and of differing views between the parties. But even granting the differing views upon their nature, it is impossible upon the working of the regulations to tell what sort of controls we shall end up with.
It is true that the schedule gives us some sketchy details of what the conditions might comprise, but it is equally true that they might not comprise them, because, as I read it, the Minister is under no statutory obligation to include all the points in the schedule in the final conditions which are imposed.
At the same time, by an ingenious piece of drafting, other points which are not in the schedule at the moment can be included in the advertisement. So what use are the regulations? I suggest that they are no use at all except to enable the Government to claim that they are observing the proprieties while keeping Parliament firmly shut out on the substance of the debate. In what may sound a harsh judgment, particularly of the Parliamentary Secretary, I said that I believed that ministerial probity was involved. I have already given one instance when we were assured that details would be debated on the regulations rather than on the Bill. Now we know that that is not so.
Let me give some other instances. On 16 April, as part of the same Committee stage, when discussing labelling and pesticide containers, we were told by the Minister that the regulations would contain details on those subjects. Indeed, she gave an absolute assurance that labels would be dealt with in the regulations. Neither matter is even mentioned in the regulations. What price ministerial assurances now?
But even more serious is the question of enforcement. We all know—we recognised it when we debated this—that enforcement was the key to the effectiveness of the regulations. We also know from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that routine inspections of family farms, as opposed to farms which employ labour, can now be expected only every 30 years. I repeat—30 years. It was always anticipated that without additional inspectors enforcement of the regulations would be ineffective.
On 26 June on Report, the Minister assured us that
there will be 12 additional inspectors."—[Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 959.]
We now know, from the evidence of the Health and Safety Executive to the Select Committee on Agriculture, that there will not be any additional inspectors. This catalogue makes me wonder what ministerial assurances on this Bill are worth. Such a cavalier attitude does not do the Ministry any credit, and that alone merits our dividing the House.
I shall now consider the weakness of the regulations compared with what we were promised would happen. Chief among them, although the hon. Lady did not mention it in her long comments on aerial spraying is the gross weakening of the protection afforded to sites of special scientific interest. The Committee was anxious about aerial spraying but was somewhat mollified when we were told not to be too worried as regulations and statutory control would replace the air navigation orders. Those orders require notification of a proposal to spray aerially within three quarters of a nautical mile of an SSSI. We were astounded to learn that, in the regulations, that provision is limited to SSSIs which are the subject of a section 29 order, which is appropriately made against an awkward landowner. I can illustrate how exceptional such orders are by saying that fewer then 20—I believe that it is fewer then 15 — such orders have been made, although there are 5,000 SSSIs.
Despite the hon. Lady's protestations, as the regulations stand, protection is being removed from the overwhelming majority of SSSIs. All that they have is a promise, the keeping of which is not debatable in the House, to use an advertisement. She may be trying to create a run on the London Gazette, but she is certainly not creating a flood of hon. Members coming into the Chamber to debate the regulations. This is the right place in which to debate them. If, as the hon. Lady said, she meant to include all sites to which section 28 applies, it is a sad commentary of the extensive consultation which she said that she did and on the extensive adoption of the suggestions that she got the wrong section in the regulations.
The regulations are materially defective. They should be taken away, given back to the draftsmen and brought back in a more acceptable form. Anybody would have thought that this was a joke or a mistake. If this is not a mistake, it will be a shameful betrayal of thousands of farmers who are deeply concerned about the environment.
That is but one example of how control is being weakened. Another concerns the provision of training. We all agree that it is vital, when handling a toxic substance such as a pesticide, to be properly trained. That was common ground in Committee. Our assent was therefore strained to breaking point when the regulations became known. They provide that only people who will be under 25 in 1989 will have to be trained before they can apply pesticides. With normal retirement dates, that means that it will be 40 years before everyone who handles pesticides will be covered by the regulations. I have heard of phased introduction, but that it taking it to absurd lengths. A qualified work force is important.
I shall now consider the omissions. The Committee favoured most strongly the minimum of pesticides being applied with the maximum accuracy. There was agreement about that.
I understand that discussions on these regulations have featured a procedure of parallel approvement whereby adjuvents for example, would be approved separately and brought into effect with pesticides. One example of adjuvents is vegetable oil, which not only makes lower quantities of pesticide more effective, but cuts the risk of spray drift. I remember spending many happy hours in Committee on the problem of spray drift.
The approval procedure is not part of the regulations. We are not told that it will be produced in some amorphous form, which I cannot pretend to understand from the Minister's explanation, and will somehow be all right. The omission of the provision about adjuvents from the regulations has led the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association, the Agricultural Engineers Association and companies involved to believe that pesticide manufacturers have been given an effective veto on what substances may be used with their pesticides and what means of application, such as controlled droplet application, can be used. If that is so, and it seems that it is, I believe it to be contrary to public policy.
It is true that we got another absolute assurance from the Minister that such techniques would be neither explicitly nor implicitly banned. I shall want a great deal of convincing, of the vagueness of the Minister's speech tonight, before I believe that this is not another example of a broken promise given to the Committee.
Again, head 8 of the possible heads of proposals mentions a list of all approved pesticides. It is similar to one currently to be found by farmers and other people in agriculture to be very useful. It is a booklet in which one can find all the approved pesticides. However, although it was in the heads of proposals under the consultation procedure, it is nowhere to be found in this regulation. Also, there are no references to include the training of advisers, which was in the consultation procedure, or the regulation of storage and the transportation of pesticides.
This is a typically slipshod effort at legislating by a know-nothing and care-nothing Department. The gaps and deficiencies in the regulations mean that they should be withdrawn and redrafted. Of course, we know that that will not happen because the Government pay no heed to advice they get from concerned people. We shall vote against these regulations, not because we are against pesticide control, but because this attempt falls so short of pesticide control that it devalues the subject and insults the feeling of genuine concern of many thousands of people.

Sir John Farr: I do not share the disappointment of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) over what my hon. Friend has said. I was on the Standing Committee with the hon. Gentleman and a number of other Members in the Chamber and, as I understood it, one of the main things that the Minister said in the long debates we had was that she would tighten up on aerial spraying. In schedule 4 we have quite a detailed, and, to my view, satisfactory calendar of events which any aerial operator has to follow in the future. I would say that schedule 4 is well worth a try.
I do not share the bogus disappointment which the hon. Member for Pontypridd has, in a typical way, expressed from the Opposition Front Bench. We were promised by the Minister, I distinctly remember, that we would get regulations. We have only one hour and a half on this. The Whips have already been round asking us to speak for two minutes or less. We were promised a whole flow of regulations. I regard this as the first of a family. I think that the hon. Member for Pontypridd will not be disappointed when the Minister says that this is the first of the regulations which will flow from the mass of work that we all shared in Committee. As such he should not be so churlish as to speak about it in the way that he has.
I recognise that it is impossible in a debate lasting one and a half hours to include all the undertakings that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave in Committee. I recall, however, that during our debates on aerial spraying, during which the hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about spray drift, my hon. Friend said that she recognised that some products could change their character completely within a few months. It is unfortunate that we have nothing in the regulations about products that can change substantially in character after 12 months and become either dangerous or harmless, or have an entirely different effect from that which they had originally. I hope that a statement to that effect will be included in the next set of regulations to come forward.
There was quite a substantial debate on that issue in Committee, and if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary refers to the Hansard reports of the proceedings, if she has time to do so, she will find that she undertook to consider the issue.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said, the Committee which considered the Bill, as it then was, was a good one in that we tried to confine ourselves to issues of common sense. We discussed carefully misleading advertisements of products that are quite effective in dealing with a certain problem but which have harmful by-effects. We had long debates about a product called Kestrel, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) drew attention. It is a German chemical which has dangerous effects on wildlife. General anxiety was expressed by Members on both sides of the Committee about the need to tighten up on regulations that apply to misleading advertisements and the provision of inadequate warnings. I would hope that we have before us the first of a family of regulations that will flow from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Schedule 3 sets out eight sensible conditions subject to which consent to the use of pesticides may be given. There is reference to proper training. The third condition states:
No person shall use a pesticide in conjunction with an adjuvant except in accordance with the conditions".


There is reference also to a person's training, which is so important. An omission, which I hope will be put right, is a requirement that should be placed upon machinery manufacturers. It should be possible for all spray operators to gain access to spraying controls without leaving their closed tractor cab. That is something that is recognised by good tractor manufacturers and suppliers which offer sealed safety cabs. The controls are placed inside the cab, but only because the manufacturers think that that is a good idea. In fact, it is essential to the comfort, health and safety of the operator that they are. He should not have to leave his cab when he wants to turn the sprayer off and risk inhaling outside air which could be contaminated. I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a greater interest in practicalities and introduce a requirement, in conjunction with machinery and tractor manufacturers, that at an early date all new tractors must have all spraying controls inside a sealed cab so as to protect the operator by making it unnecessary to leave the cab and risk inhaling outside air in what could be a temporarily polluted environment.
In expressing disappointment yet great hope and confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister — she has never let me down over many years — I welcome the regulations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have less hope and confidence than the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has pointed out to me that it is significant that whereas the Liberal and Labour parties have agricultural and environmental spokesmen in the Chamber, no Minister from the Department of the Environment is present on the Front Bench. [Interruption.] There is only an Agriculture Minister. There is nobody from the Department of the Environment. [Interruption.] The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the hon. Member for Medway (Mrs. Fenner), have been present. If the Government are to make a commitment to reconcile, properly, the interests of agriculture and the environment, it might be just about possible for one Minister from the six at the Department of the Environment to manage to be present for an hour and a half at the end of an evening.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. I will not give way.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. Perhaps we can return to the regulations under consideration.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No. I am not giving way.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), was present until about two or three minutes ago when she left the Chamber. It is grossly unfair that an hon. Member should refuse to give way when he has made an attack of that sort.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be unfair, but it is not a matter for me. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Hughes: When the legislation went through the House it was clear that regulations were to be expected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and I said that the sooner we got them, the better. We now have the regulations, and that is to be welcomed, because the Bill was without substance until they came before the House. If the Government were truly minded to honour the commitments made in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, the ideal way to proceed would be to introduce their proposals and, in the light of a debate in the House, to take them away, improve them and bring them back in a generally acceptable form. The fact that they have not done so is to be regretted.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made clear, there is concern that whereas in the draft consultation document it was clearly anticipated that the Government would deal with sites of special scientific interest, somehow — the Minister said "by mistake"—they were omitted. I cannot believe that with a whole Department of Civil Servants such a substantial mistake can be made on a matter coming before the House. It must give some cause for suspicion that the Government have no real commitment, unless in the reply the Government can say that all the SSSIs will be protected as they anticipated in the MAFF consultation paper of November 1985.
It is not clear whether the regulations, especially those relating to training, also apply to independent advisers and consultants. Clearly, they apply to the industry, but at various stages of the principal legislation the anxiety was expressed that the controls related to agricultural pesticides, but not to non-agricultural pesticides and those using them in a different context, as advisers and consultants. If the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary reappears, I would be grateful if the Minister could be given an answer to that question.
It is not clear whether the scope of the regulations extends beyond the agricultural sector. It was intended that it should. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that the regulations cover all use of pesticides by whomsoever it may be, and are not limited to one sector.
There is concern among the trade associations that they were not adequately consulted. I hope that the Minister has taken note of that concern — people were led to believe that they would have a more substantial period of consultation.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd made a comment that I would endorse—that simply and scientifically it is wrong to suggest, as is done in schedule 3, paragraph (2), that one can include both tank mixes and adjuvants in the same context in the regulations. That is not the way in which the industry deals with the matter, and it would have been far better to have separated them.
I wish briefly to make two final points. The Minister said little about resources for enforcement. If we agree that there should be regulations, and that they should be made soon after the Act, it is clear that they are no good unless people are available to enforce them. The one without the other is of no use to anyone. The Minister did not make any substantial commitment to that in her speech.
Secondly, it must be apparent to everyone that with the method that the Government have now chosen, the crucial stage will lie with the granting or withholding of licences. We are putting back the day and the way in which the law becomes effective. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who served on the Committee, and my hon. Friend for Brecon and Radnor, who speaks for my party on agricultural matters, clearly want regulations. My concern is that the Government did not take into account what we and other hon. Members said in Committee. Perhaps more important they did not honour all the things that they said they would before they brought the regulations to the House.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: This matter greatly concerns my part of East Anglia, where aerial spraying is common and the use of pesticides essential to our farming industry. Last night I spoke on an environmental matter that touched upon East Anglia, and ended up with a result quite different from the one that I had hoped to achieve. However, tonight we are fortunate enough to have present two members of the Whip's Office who will at least ensure that, whoever wins the argument, we will win the vote.
I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). His views, although perhaps overstated, coincided with much of the advice that I have received. It was while I was in the Department of the Environment as a junior Minister that the Royal Commission on environmental pollution was established. As one of its founding fathers, I have always regarded it with the utmost seriousness. When I read its 1979 report, which dealt with aerial spraying, I thought that the time had come to deal with that matter.
The Opposition spokesman was a little grudging in his remarks, because at least the Government have tackled the problem that their predecessors did not. It is a matter for congratulation that this Government have at least done something about pesticides, while Opposition Members have talked about it but achieved nothing. That having been said, I must say that I am not happy with — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has already made his speech, wants to intervene. I must tell him pointedly that he is badly dressed, badly informed and bad-mannered. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was here, listened to the two Front Benches, excused herself, as must happen in this Chamber from time to time, and is almost certainly going to return. It was wrong of the hon. Gentleman quite typically to asperse her—especially as he is, I repeat, bad-mannered, badly informed and badly dressed.
I come now to the matter on which I find myself in considerable agreement with the Opposition. I have been advised by those involved in CDA — controlled droplet application — sprays in my constituency that these regulations are defective in some parts. When one of my constituents wrote to me and complained about the regulations and claimed that they would destroy his company, I said that I needed more evidence than that of an interested party. He obtained for me the advice of a

gentleman, Mr. R. J. Makepeace, who is an expert in the field. I shall not go into his details in view of the shortage of time. Mr. Makepeace said:
When I read this"—
paragraph 3 of schedule 3—
this confirmed my worst suspicions that this Act would … give a charter for the major international agrochem manufacturers to restrict development and special applications of adjuvants in the United Kingdom. On reading schedule 3 I immediately came to the conclusion that one could not use an adjuvant, except in accordance with the conditions of the approval given in relation to that pesticide and, as already stated by the minister the pesticide would, in fact, be a label from a manufacturer. If, therefore, that label did not care to mention an adjuvant then none could be used with it. This is particularly bad when one looks at a product such as Betanal E"—
he then mentioned the manufacturer, which was a non-British-owned company—
where they make no recommendations for any adjuvant at all, not even their own adjuvant oil, and yet this market would not exist without adjuvants and indeed the British Sugar Corporation recommend every post-emergent herbicide be used with an adjuvant.
The schedule does not deal with that. When I brought that to the attention of my hon. Friend, she courteously and diligently considered the matter. She wrote to me on 16 July. I need not read all the letter, because she used the same words tonight. The essence of what she said was:
Clearly we cannot continue to operate in this way under the regulations because adjuvants do not fall within the definition of pesticides in the Act.
Then came the immortal words:
However, what we intend to do is to continue to evaluate adjuvants notified to us and to publish a list of adjuvants which we have found to be suitable for use with approved pesticides.
That is something that she intends to do. Yet, she is asking the House to approve it. It is not a question of what she intends to do. I want to know what she has done so far.
She continued:
The conditions of approval of a pesticide referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 will then include"—
I ask the House to mark the words—
something to the effect that this pesticide may only be used with adjuvants which appear on the MAFF list.
What on earth does one mean by coming to the House of Commons and talking about "something to the effect"? We are asked to pass specific regulations that must be enforced and obeyed by everyone in the country. Yet, what we are offered is that some time in future the Ministry will work out
something to the effect that this pesticide may only be used with adjuvants which appear on the MAFF list.
What MAFF list? There is no MAFF list in front of us tonight. It will be concocted some time in future.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care and diligence with which she has considered the problem. The assurances she has given will go a long way to satisfying some of my constituents. I congratulate her on having tackled the problem of pesticides and on having done something that has not been done before. However, the vagueness of her letter and her speech tonight does not give me a great deal of confidence that the Ministry is tackling the problem with the rigorous, intellectual care that is required in such a matter.
The country cares that pesticides should be brought under effective control—and no group of people more than the agriculture industry. The better farmer is deeply concerned. But he must have something better than words saying that at some uncertain point in the future,


something to the effect will be produced on a list that is not before us. That is not good legislation. It is not good enough for the House.

Miss Joan Maynard: The regulations, which are being laid before Parliament in accordance with the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, do not even address all the issues identified in the consultative document. Will the matters not addressed in the regulations be addressed in future regulations? This is a matter for concern. We will not know the full extent of the protection likely to be afforded until all the regulations have been laid before Parliament. We can have no faith in that approach, given the Government's stated intention not to provide 12 more inspectors, as promised in the consultative document.
How many other matters will be conveniently left unaddressed? The regulations are controlled and run by the wrong agency — the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It would have been better if the Department of the Environment had been in control. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been influenced far too much by the powerful farming lobby, which has a direct interest in the use of pesticides. I wonder how much the agro-chemical industry has influenced the Ministry.
The scope of the regulations is too narrow, as outlined in regulation 3, and the exemptions in regulation 3(2) are too wide—the worst of both worlds. Regulation 4 deals with prohibitions, but there is no mention of procedures to be adopted to ensure compliance with the regulations. I believe that regulation 4 should give details of proper sampling procedures, record-keeping, and so on and the roles of the following: the Health and Safety Executive, the public analyst and the environmental health officers.
Regulation 4, which deals with information, lays down no appeals procedure when a member of the public is refused access to information. The body that makes the decision relating to pesticide clearance should not have the power of veto. There must be a formal independent appeals procedure which can be invoked when there has been a refusal to provide raw data on request.
Regulation 8(3) states:
A copy of an evaluation or study report may be furnished by the Ministers on payment of such reasonable fees as the Ministers, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine from time to time.
I am worried about three aspects. First, the regulation states that the Ministers "may", not "will". Secondly, it refers to the payment of "such reasonable fees". The word "reasonable" could have different meanings for different people. Thirdly, the regulation refers to the "consent of the Treasury".
This is in sharp contrast to section 18 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which deals with fees which "may" be payable by industry. I believe that regulation 8(3) is at best ambiguous and at worst biased against the public and in favour of industry. One side should not be obliged to pay while the other "may" have to pay.
Aerial spraying is one of the most contentious issues, yet there is no requirement under the regulations to notify the Health and Safety Executive of aerial spraying activity. Notice must be given to the chief environmental health officer for the district in which it is intended to apply

pesticides. The Health and Safety Executive is the body responsible for human health and safety under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, yet it is specifically excluded from the notification requirements of schedule 4 to the regulations. Is this another example of deregulation or a thinly disguised attempt to reduce the Health and Safety Executive's responsibilities under the Food and Envionment Protection Act to justify the refusal to provide the 12 additional inspectors originally promised?
Whatever the reasons, the exclusion of the Health and Safety Executive is wholly unacceptable. Let us look at records — again, an important matter. There is no mention of record keeping in the regulations except under schedule 4(5), dealing with aerial spraying. I believe that records must be kept in respect of all pesticide users. They need to include the following details: the length of operation, the date of first use, ill effects, suspected or confirmed, medical attention received or sought, nature of application equipment, protective clothing supplied or used. To have any real value, those records need to be kept for at least 20 years. The three-year period for record-keeping in respect of aerial spraying is far too short. That, too, should be a minimum of 20 years, as for all other records.
Let us look at the review procedure. The regulations make no reference to a review procedure in connection with pesticide approval. Pesticides should be reviewed every five years, and sooner when there is knowledge of potential or actual risks and hazards. On container design, storage and disposal, the consultative document refers to a code of practice relating to those issues. The full extent of the code is not identified, however, and no mention is made of container design. Those issues are too important to be relegated to an undetermined future code of practice, and must form part of and be covered by the regulations.
The original consultative document referred to the need
to secure safe, sufficient and humane methods of controlling pests".
No such reference is made in the regulations. Such a reference must be included in the preamble. In short, the regulations, to put it mildly, leave much to be desired. That is why we shall vote against them.

Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) will forgive me if I do not take up some of the various points that she made.
The behaviour of Opposition Members, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark), was appalling while my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was making her speech. This is a serious debate, which affects many people, both in and outside the industry. It was appalling that some Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has returned to the Chamber, considered that it was a matter for such levity. We spent many hours in Committee on this important subject. Perhaps it befits the Labour party that it considered it a matter for laughter and light-heartedness.
I followed with interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd. He will know that I have much sympathy with what he said. Conservative Members admired the way in which he conducted the debate in Committee, but he will understand that I cannot go fully


down the road of the extravagant language that he used in his criticism of the regulations. He is right in that there are certain deficiencies, and he is also right that there are certain matters left unsaid and perhaps certain questions unanswered. I agree with him that there must be concern that these long-awaited regulations are perhaps a disappointment to some of us.
However, I think that most hon. Members and certainly the industry and farmers will welcome the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, at least this Government have had the courage to bring them before the House in response to a certain amount of public pressure as well as pressure within the agriculture industry itself. For that, we should be grateful.
I should like to put three small points to my hon. Friend the Minister, on matters where there is still some concern in the industry. The first is to do with schedule 3 (2) and (3), which have already been mentioned. I should like to refer to mixing the adjuvants. If the regulations are enforced strictly according to the law it will restrict many farmers in the mixes that they can put into their own tanks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly said, if they have to keep rigidly to the manufacturers' recommendations, with certain chemicals, it will be far more costly for the farmers to use them.
One is concerned that adjuvants do not appear in the pesticide regulations. I can understand why they do not. The cost to the farming industry could be considerable, and in many cases, certain geographical and climatic conditions may mean that farmers should be able to mix and use the strengths of chemical according to their judgment at a particular time. The rigidity of these regulations would tend to restrict that. There is great concern in the industry on this matter, and any way in which my hon. Friend can look at it again, or make some further remark on it, would be welcome.
I understand that liquid fertilisers are to be considered within this part of the regulations, but they were not mentioned in Committee, and it seems as though that has been slipped in. Again, perhaps my hon. Friend can say something about that.
I mentioned my second point in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech. It is about the advisers and inspectors. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Pontypridd about the reduced number of inspectors that has been proposed. Far be it from any Conservative Member to approve more bureaucrats, but in this case concern was expressed to members of the Select Committee when we were at Rothamsted recently that the regulations might come in without enforcement because of lack of personnel.
I am more worried that the regulations insist, possibly rightly, that those who use chemicals, and those directly involved, should have some form of training. My hon. Friend will know that in our discussions on Second Reading concern was expressed that the British agricultural standards inspection scheme, of which I know that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister are admirers, was not written into the legislation. The industry can understand how it was impossible to put that in. If strict training procedures are put on those who use the chemicals, surely, similar training must be imposed on

those who inspect and have the job of making sure that the regulations are carried out. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the regulations about that.
My third point of concern is about access to information. My hon. Friend was right to express some surprise at the opposition to this measure that has come from the Opposition Benches, and particularly from the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sorry that the spokesman for the SDP is not here, but that is a matter for him, and perhaps for the Liberal party. There is concern that the greater access to information could have a damaging effect on the future of chemicals, and could put some chemicals at risk as some manufacturers find that certain information is made restricted if access to information is given.
We all appreciate that the public must be made aware of what is going on. The work of the Select Committee at the moment is on the effects of pesticides on human health. The hon. Member for Brightside is on that Committee as well, and will understand that we must try to allay public anxiety. If the regulations restrict research and development by manufacturers because too much information is to be made available, so that others can take that information and use it to their advantage it may restrict development in this sector.
In general, Conservative Members will support the regulations. We are a little surprised that the Opposition have chosen to vote against them, but I appreciate the strong feelings and the large amount of work that they, and in particular the hon. Member for Pontypridd, have done. Neither the industry nor the farming community are afraid of regulation of their activities. This may be an early step, with more to come. However, it allays fears and gives the lie to those who say that the Government are not interested in the effect of chemicals on human health. For that reason, I shall support the Government, and wish my hon. Friend well in the implementation of the regulations.

Dr. David Clark: The Committee on the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was one of the most constructive and thoughtful Committees on which I have served. Constructive points were put forward from all sides and we thought that the Minister had taken note of them. Time after time we were told that the Department would try to accommodate the points in the regulations. Therefore, I am bitterly disappointed to see the form of the regulations. They are most inadequate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has spelt out in a devastating fashion. I hope that the Minister has listened to the tone of her hon. Friends' speeches. Although they may join her in the Division Lobby, I detected their deep concern. Almost all hon. Members who have spoken feel that the regulations are not up to par.
In the short time at my disposal I want to touch on three matters. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) made a pertinent point which needs clarifying. Are these the only regulations that the Government foresee bringing before us arising out of the Food and Environment Protection Act, or is the hon. Gentleman correct in assuming that other regulations will follow in the near future? We need a definitive statement on that point tonight. The hon. Member for Harborough will no doubt be listening for that answer.
Several hon. Members turned to enforcement. If the regulations are to be effective in protecting human health, agricultural workers and the environment, we need proper enforcement. I hope the Minister has heard the word from both sides of the House and the deep disappointment about the way in which she has reneged on her promise at the Report stage in this House in June to appoint 12 additional inspectors.
May I draw to the Minister's attention the evidence of the Health and Safety Executive to the Select Committee on Agriculture:
It has not proved possible to allocate extra resources to HSE for the fresh tasks imposed by the regulations, under the FEP Act, within the constraints applying generally to civil service manpower. There are also limits to the speed with which inspectors can be recruited fully trained and experienced.
How, therefore, can the Minister assure the House that the work of enforcement under the regulations can be done effectively when already the Health and Safety Executive says that it has insufficient staff to do the job?
On the environment, as the Minister knows, the system of sites of special scientific interest covers only a small proportion of our environment. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and I know, those areas are very restricted. Restrictions have been imposed because of the high scientific quality and rarity of the areas. Under the present regulations, before these come into operation, every one of the SSSIs is protected from aerial spraying. It is not good enough for the Minister to say to the House tonight, "We have made a mistake. Only 15 of the 4,500 are now protected. But do not worry. We will put it right by an advertisement in the Edinburgh Gazette and the London Gazette." The experience of the Government under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been that enforcement notices have been inadequate. The problem was only rectified by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which I introduced as a private Member's Bill in the last Parliament. Therefore, how can we have confidence that the Government can protect the 4,500 SSSIs simply by means of an advertisement in the two capital gazettes?
I hope we have shown that the regulations are a great disappointment. They represent a breach of faith amongst those hon. Members who spent many hours constructively in Committee. The Minister has admitted that the regulations are inadequate and contain great gaps. They are not good enough to be brought before the House. Furthermore, in some instances they weaken the protection from the use of pesticides that is provided for the general public and the environment. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the regulations.

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) suggested that the Government had not paid enough heed. We paid enough heed by introducing these regulations. It has been pointed out by several of my hon. Friends that previous Governments did not do so. It was a travesty for the hon. Gentleman to say what he did.
The hon. Gentleman questioned the form that the regulations take. The regulations are more detailed than the Act. They contain a list of the pesticides that will be covered by the regulations. They also deal with the treatment of anti-fouling paints and aerial spraying and control over the sale, supply, storage, advertising and use of pesticides.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that in principle Ministers should be able to add other controls as circumstances change. In law, those changes must follow the intentions of the enabling legislation. He does not have to wait for the consents to see what they contain. The schedules contain all the conditions that will be included in the consents, apart from the one exception to which I referred. I say again that we intend to take powers under section 28 to ensure that it applies to all sites of special scientific interest. That is in addition to the consent. I have already fully explained what will be added. All the conditions that are contained in the schedules will be included in the consents.
A number of hon. Members have referred to enforcement. Apart from the agricultural inspectorate, trading standards officers will look after the sale of pesticides, environmental health officers will enforce conditions relating to use on premises not visited by the Health and Safety Executive, the agricultural departments will investigate wildlife incidents and crop damage, and the railways inspectorate, among others, will also be involved. Enforcement will be shared between them.
Recruitment to the agricultural inspectorate is in progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been unable to divert the envisaged additional resources, because of other demands. However, the Health and Safety Commission has assured the Government that the inspectorate will be able to meet its responsibilities.

Mr. John: The hon. Lady must have had the same pap served up to her as a brief when she gave her promise on Report. Why did she promise to recruit 12 additional inspectors to carry out a wide range of extra duties if she had no intention of fulfilling that promise?

Mrs. Fenner: Again that Js a travesty. That was the number of additional inspectors that the inspectorate assured us would be necessary. Recruitment for that number will continue, but the Health and Safety Executive has assured us that it has sufficient inspectors with which to enforce its responsibilities.
A number of hon. Members referred in particular to adjuvants. I take seriously the charge that the Government have been slipshod over their treatment of adjuvants. They are not pesticides. Therefore, they do not feature in the regulations. I accept the point that was made about the wording. There will be a reference to a list. I have explained that we have been testing adjuvants as though they were pesticides. We will continue to test them and produce a list of acceptable adjuvants, but I cannot give the exact wording that will be involved. However, we will state that a particular pesticide may be used with adjuvant from the list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) questioned the stability of formulation. I can assure him that that will be one of the properties evaluated before a product is approved. We would not approve a product which deteriorated too rapidly. We also require labels to contain guidance on the storage conditions appropriate to maintain the qualities of a pesticide. The code of practice for distributors and users will contain guidance on stock controls.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) needed to comment on the temporary absence from the Chamber of my hon. Friend


the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He will see that she has returned. It was especially ungracious of the hon. Member to comment in that way as we all know that hon. Members move in and out of the Chamber during debates. My hon. Friend listened with great care to the opening speeches.
I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the regulations cover the sale, supply, storage, use and advertisements of all pesticides even when used for non-agricultural purposes. He made a general point that he believed that consultations were inadequate. The document was issued in November and we issued almost 1,500 copies of the consultation document. We received about 125 written submissions and we held 25 detailed discussions with representative organisations. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can assert that that constitutes inadequate consultation. We have not had responses to that effect.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) made several points. Reference to the safe, efficient and humane control of pests is not contained in the regulations because that is already written into the enabling Act. Hon. Members have mentioned many of the points covered in the consultative document which do not appear in the regulations. The reason is that the consultative document described the legislative and administrative arrangements which will operate.
The hon. Member for Brightside referred to the five-year reviews detailed in the consultative document. However, it is not appropriate to review every five years, because during that time many pesticides are still in active development and therefore constantly being re-evaluated. One of the important reasons for farmers to keep records is that they might show that there needed to be an additional review. The review system is set up to review every pesticide every 10 years and it can take ad hoc decisions to review pesticides for a specific reason. I hope that the hon. Member for Brightside will be reassured.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 128.

Division No. 264]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Best, Keith
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe,


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dover, Den


Bruinvels, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Durant, Tony





Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marlow, Antony


Eggar, Tim
Mather, Carol


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maude, Hon Francis


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Farr, Sir John
Merchant, Piers


Favell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Forth, Eric
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Franks, Cecil
Neale, Gerrard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Needham, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Newton, Tony


Galley, Roy
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Norris, Steven


Gow, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Greenway, Harry
Osborn, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Ground, Patrick
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Pollock, Alexander


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Porter, Barry


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Rhodes James, Robert


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Harris, David
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, J.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Ryder, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hickmet, Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hirst, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Holt, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Spencer, Derek


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Howells, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Stokes, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Terlezki, Stefan


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Knowles, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Knox, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Tracey, Richard


Lang, Ian
Trippier, David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lawrence, Ivan
Viggers, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Waddington, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lester, Jim
Walden, George


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Warren, Kenneth


Lord, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Wheeler, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitfield, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Whitney, Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Madel, David
Wilkinson, John


Major, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas






Wolfson, Mark
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.




NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Ashton, Joe
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy
Leadbitter, Ted


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bell, Stuart
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Litherland, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Blair, Anthony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Marek, Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Martin, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michie. William


Clarke, Thomas
Mikardo, Ian


Clay, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clelland, David Gordon
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Conlan, Bernard
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Parry, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pendry, Tom


Craigen, J. M.
Pike, Peter


Crowther, Stan
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Randall, Stuart


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Raynsford, Nick


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Redmond, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dewar, Donald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dubs, Alfred
Robertson, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Eadie, Alex
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, J. W.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Ewing, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Faulds, Andrew
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Fisher, Mark
Soley, Clive


Flannery, Martin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Jack


Foster, Derek
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Foulkes, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


George, Bruce
Welsh, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hardy, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Don Dixon and


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Chris Smith.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the first Resolution of 20th July 1984 (limit on office, secretarial and research allowance) should have effect as if—

(a) the limit for the year ending with 31st March 1986 had remained at £13,211, and
(b) the relevant percentage for the year ending with 31st March 1987 were 6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected both the amendments on the Order Paper: that in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) — in paragraph (a), to leave out remained at £13,211" and insert "been £19,000.". — and that in the name of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) — in paragraph (b), leave out "6" and insert "18".
It may be for the convenience of the House if the amendments are debated with the motion, and I ask the respective hon. Members to move them formally at the end of the debate. Is that for the convenience of the House?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Biffen: The House will have seen the answer which I gave last Thursday to a question from my hon. Friend, the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about the secretarial, office and research allowance, which, for convenience, I shall now refer to as the secretarial allowance.
The answer had two elements to it. The first, and wider, element was the announcement that I had written to the chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body, inviting it to carry out the four-yearly review of the level and structure of the secretarial allowance as I had previously undertaken to do.
The second, and narrower, point dealt with the uprating of the allowance for this year. That is the point which concerns us tonight. It is the reason why that I have put this motion before the House. I intend, therefore, to confine my remarks to the annual uprating, although I will of course ensure that our proceedings tonight are also referred to the TSRB for consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend say why he writes to the Top Salaries Review Body when, whenever it reports, the Government consistently ignore its recommendations?

Mr. Biffen: I have communicated with the TSRB because I was asked to do so by many right hon. and hon. Members.
I should say a few words about the two amendments, both of which have been selected. The amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) accepts the proposed percentage increase in the current year of 6 per cent., but they would set aside the size of the allowance determined by the arrangements which the House confirmed in 1984, and replace it with a substantially higher figure.
This deals with an issue which I know is of concern, and legitimately so, to a number of Members. However, it invites debate not about the interim uprating figure but about the size of the allowance itself. I feel that this should


really be a matter for the Top Salaries Review Body, and I very much hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will submit to it the evidence which he believes sustains such a figure. I do not feel that this should be part of this evening's decision.
The amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Battersea deals more directly with the interim uprating before us today. It would provide for an increase of 18 per cent. in the allowance for the current year. In the course of my remarks on the resolution, I shall indicate why I believe that a 6 per cent. increase is preferable to the larger increase proposed in this amendment.
I turn now to the resolution itself. At present, the arrangements for the secretarial allowance are as agreed by the House on 20 July 1984. That resolution followed the TSRB recommendation that the annual percentage increase in the secretarial allowance should be the same percentage increase as for the salary plus inner London weighting for a civil servant at the maximum point of the senior personal secretary scale. The advantages of automatic uprating are manifest. It enables the House to devise a formula by which the level of the allowance should be determined, and then allows that to be put into practice without the need for a further debate each year. There has been general support for that view.
However, the most careful linkage plans are nonetheless capable of producing unintended perversities. The House has to react in a spirit of equity and common sense. Members will recall, indeed, that this occurred relatively recently in relation to the motor mileage allowance, which was also set by a mechanism of linkage.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, press reports have suggested that the secretarial research allowance could form part of a Member's salary. In his reply, will he say that it does not form part of our salary and that it is administered in such a way by the Fees Office that that is, in fact, impossible?

Mr. Biffen: It is absolutely clear that the secretarial allowance does not form part of a Member's salary and any press comment suggesting that it does was misconceived. The rates payable to Members in respect of the motor mileage allowance were tied to those applicable in the Civil Service. Then, in July 1983, considerable disquiet was expressed by Members about the changes implicit in continuing that link, because of the way in which the Civil Service rates had been restructured. It was felt this inflicted an unintended disadvantage upon Members. As a consequence—

Mr. Richard Holt: Is not the debate about the secretarial allowance and not Members' car allowances, which is irrelevant?

Mr. Biffen: I can understand that my hon. Friend may not appreciate the line of argument, which is that linkage is very valuable. If linkage produces perverse consequences which have been detrimental to Members, there has been no shortage of voices saying that the linkage should be set aside. As I was saying, as a consequence the linkage formula was set aside and eventually the House confirmed an alternative system mainly based upon the recommendations of Lord Peyton and his aides.
In the case of the secretarial allowance, again it is the restructuring within the Civil Service which would produce a distortion of the intended arrangements.

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Leader of the House accept that the perversity arises from the Government's proposal and not from the system? When Lord Plowden wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 16 May 1984, he said that the allowance should be linked to the salaries of senior personal secretaries
whose work we consider to be broadly analogous in terms of quality to the type of secretarial support generally required by MPs.
The restructuring to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred has been required as a result of negotiations because it has been accepted that those secretaries need a significant increase in their salaries. If they need a significant increase in their salaries, why do our secretaries not?

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall cover that point, A rise is not going to Civil Service grades in actual pay as would be suggested merely by the alteration in scale.

Mr. Clive Soley: There is a linkage to senior personal secretaries, and they have not been regarded in their structure. Their proficiency has been included in their grading as a recognition of work change as a result of word processors and other technology. There has been no restructuring of the grade, and there is a clear understanding of that within the Civil Service.

Mr. Biffen: I take that point.
Early this year, there was a restructuring of the pay of secretarial grades within the Civil Service. Part of this restructuring involved the withdrawal of proficiency allowances and their consolidation into pay scales for senior personal secretaries. It had the effect of increasing the maximum point of the senior personal secretary scale by about 12 per cent., including inner London weighting. In fact, however, scarcely any senior personal secretaries gained an increase of this size as most of them had been receiving proficiency allowances. Many received no increase.
The difficulty with the secretarial allowance link arises from the terms of the 1984 resolution. This based the uprating solely on the increase in the salary scale as such, and took no account of allowances. Indeed, allowances and overtime were excluded from the calculation as they tend to vary between individuals and years, and complicated what was intended to be a relatively simple pay link. Thus we have the perversity that the increase in the relevant Civil Service pay scale affects the proposed percentage increase in the secretarial allowance whereas the offsetting impact of consolidating certain Civil Service allowances on net pay is disregarded.
Taking into account the 6 per cent. increase in salary scales provided for in this year's Civil Service pay award and whatever adjustment is agreed in respect of London weighting, the automatic uprating would produce an increase of about 18 per cent. in the secretarial allowance in the year beginning of 1 April 1986 compared with the previous year.
Nor would the effects of proceeding—

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I ask my right hon. Friend a somewhat academic and vulgar


question, the answer to which might be of interest to some hon. Members? The Government feel that it is now appropriate to break the linkage with regard to secretarial allowances, and a certain linkage has been agreed with regard to Members' allowances and pay. What will be the Government's view on that linkage?

Mr. Biffen: The reconsideration of linkage goes no further than the secretarial allowance, and in respect of this year only. Any attempt to suggest or imply that it goes wider than that is mistaken.
Nor would the effects of proceeding with this disproportionate increase be confined to the secretarial allowance for this financial year. Because the increase in the main pay scale for senior personal secretaries took effect from 1 March 1986, there would be an increase in the allowance of £139 for the last financial year.
The resolution therefore seeks to make provision on both these points. First, it would set aside the unanticipated increase in the allowance of £139 for the year ending on 31 March 1986. The secretarial allowance would thus remain at £13,211 for that year, as we expected it to do. Secondly, it suspends the operation of the automatic uprating formula provided in the original resolution for the current financial year. Instead it provides for the secretarial allowance to be increased by 6 per cent. in this year. The allowance would thus rise to just over £14,000 in this year.
The passage of this resolution would in no way prevent the interim uprating from reverting to the formula arrangements provided for in the 1984 resolution in future. Indeed, that is the intention, pending a decision by the House about what the TSRB recommends.
I accept at once that departing from the formula this year involves nominating a percentage increase which must, to some extent, be arbitrary. But the figure of 6 per cent. represents the general pay increase in the Civil Service, and, I believe, is valid on that basis. As I have already said, I will, however, draw the specific attention of the TSRB to the arrangements we have made this year, so that it can be considered as one of its immediate priorities and it can report accordingly.
I have brought forward this motion in a spirit of equity and realism. [Laughter.] It is a view in which I am reinforced, knowing how the House reacted when the motor mileage allowance moved adversely.
Perversities in a linkage formula should not provide substantial hardship or windfall benefit. The operation of the link must be tempered by common sense. I have, also, felt it right that the matter should be settled before we rise for the summer recess. I believe the House would wish for an equitable increase in the secretarial allowance to be made available and capable of being backdated before the House rises. The resolution in my name would allow an increase in the secretarial allowance for this year of 6 per cent.—broadly in line with the overall increase in pay awarded to the grade with which the link was made in 1984. It is a reasonable response to an irksome problem. I commend the resolution to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: This is not the finest hour of the Leader of the House and nor could it be when, stripped of all the verbage, he is inviting the House, not to increase the secretarial allowance by 18

per cent. which would be the automatic consequence of his not introducing the order, but to reduce any increase to 6 per cent. That is the essence of the debate.
Nevertheless, this is a welcome opportunity for the House not only to debate its grossly inadequate secretarial allowance, but to do something in the Lobbies tonight to achieve a long overdue, though modest, increase. The opportunity is all the more welcome because for the first time we are dealing with the issue separately and it is in no way related to the inherently embarrassing question of hon. Members' pay or travel allowance. Whichever way the vote goes tonight—I pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and Conservative Members — Members of Parliament will not receive a penny more in their hands.
We are debating the level of increase in the so-called secretarial allowance which covers, not only the pay of hon. Members' secretaries, but their office expenses and research assistants. The proper start of the debate is the report of the Top Salaries Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden which reported in May 1983. He went to some pains to assess what he thought was the proper level of support for Members of Parliament, helped in their task by professional consultants. In his conclusion, Lord Plowden recommended that at June 1983 the appropriate maximum for the allowance available to Members of Parliament for secretarial and research assistance was £13,000 a year. Additionally, the report recommended the introduction of an allowance to meet general office expenses, including necessary capital expenditure on equipment, and that the appropriate maximum for the allowance at June 1983 was £1.000 a year. In total, therefore, the TSRB recommended a £14,000 per annum secretarial allowance for Members of Parliament covering secretarial, research and office expenses from June 1983.
Subsequently, the Lord Privy Seal invited the TSRB to consider how parliamentary allowances might be uprated automatically from year to year to avoid the need for annual parliamentary resolutions. In response, on 16 May 1984, Lord Plowden wrote:
Although this allowance is of a composite nature, we think it reasonable to assume that the major part of it will normally be devoted to meeting secretarial costs and so provide for its uprating on this basis. In making our recommendations on the appropriate levels of secretarial support for last year, we took particular account of the salaries of senior personal secretaries in the Civil Service whose work we consider to be broadly analogous in terms of quality to the type of secretarial support generally required by MPs.
The Plowden committee recommended, therefore, that the composite secretarial allowance be linked with the percentage increase in salary, plus London weighting, of the named Civil Service secretarial scale, and that automatic increase occurred during the past two years.
The reason why we have this debate tonight and why the increase proposed is not to be automatic, as the House had previously decided, is that, following the abolition of proficiency payments, the pay of the relevant Civil Service secretarial grade to which the secretarial allowance is linked is this year to rise by 18 per cent. What the Government cannot bear is the prospect that the secretarial allowance of Members of Parliament, covering as it does secretarial, research and office expenses, should rise by that amount. They want to renege on the automatic


uprating commitment into which they entered in July 1984. That is why they want to reduce the 18 per cent. to 6 per cent.
The House might have some sympathy with the Government if they had carried out the TSRB report in other respects, but they have not and they did not. As Members of Parliament know very well, having received the TSRB recommendations for a total allowance of £14,000 per annum in 1983, and having received a recommendation for a £19,000 per annum parliamentary salary at the same time, the Government rejected the latter part of the report and thus threw the whole TSRB settlement into the melting pot.
There emerged from that, after much effort by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the then chairman of the 1922 Committee, a compromise which fell substantially short of the TSRB's 1983 recommendation. As a result, the total secretarial allowance was reduced from the £14,000 that was recommended to £12,000 per annum. All the annual upratings of that allowance have proceeded from a base not of £14,000, but of £12,000.
If the Lord Privy Seal's order is carried tonight, the total secretarial and research allowance will reach £14,004 per annum—£4 more than the TSRB thought it right to be paid in June 1983, three years ago. The salary of a senior personal secretary in the Civil Service is now £10,870 per annum. That would leave of the parliamentary allowance a mere £3,134, out of which hon. Members are expected to pay for research assistants and office expenses. It is a ridiculously inadequate sum, and I intend to show why.
It can well be argued that the main component—the pay of secretaries—is itself inadequate, especially when we take into account the inevitably long and capricious hours that Members, by the nature of their work, are obliged to undertake. As for the conditions in which many secretaries have to work, they can be described only as disgraceful. The £3,134 difference between the full parliamentary allowance and the Civil Service secretarial grade becomes a negative figure when we analyse the cost components of Members' other expenses.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the top rate paid to secretaries in Whitehall is £10,230? Whitehall finds it extremely difficult to recruit suitably qualified candidates. What does that say about what we pay our secretaries?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman makes a most powerful and telling point.
I want to show why we have a negative figure for the residual part of the parliamentary allowance once the secretarial salary has been taken care of. First — I pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman — Members must find their own contributions, as employers, towards their secretaries' national insurance. On a salary of £10,870 per annum, that would amount to £1,136 in employer's national insurance payments. That reduces the £3,134 allowance difference to £1,998.
Secondly, there are the inevitable office expenses. They were calculated by the TSRB at £1,000 in June 1983. If we applied the retail price index, that would amount to £1,150 today. That reduces the remaining £1,998 to £848. Thirdly, if Members paid their secretaries at the Civil Service comparable level, and financed their office expenses at the

Plowden report level, they would have the princely sum of £848 left over to purchase research assistance. That is the main reason why my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) tabled their amendment. I shall support them, just as I supported the similar amendments that they moved two years ago.
The TSRB, in its report, never understood the importance of research assistants. As long ago as February 1980, in its 13th report, the TSRB recommended a payment of £1,250 per annum. That meagre sum, updated over the past six years, would now be £2,190, leaving Members with a minus secretarial allowance of about £1,350 per annum. It is against that background that the automatic 18 per cent. increase that the Government seek to reduce should be judged. An 18 per cent. increase would mean a parliamentary allowance of £15,670. If the TSBR's 1983 report had been adopted, and increases in line with the RPI had been approved, that sum would be £16,140. Therefore, the proposed £15,670 can hardly be thought to be excessive. The Government are not in a position to quibble, for they tabled amendments to accept that part of the TSRB report dealing with secretarial allowance for the debate on 19 July 1983.
We are debating a small and inadequate real increase in the secretarial allowance, but it would allow some minor improvements in what Members are able to pay for secretarial services research and office equipment. I have no inhibition in recommending that we do so. There is no proposal for improving our own rewards, our own standard of living. What is before us is small improvement in the resources we need to do our job more effectively.
We are the most ill-equipped and under-supported democracy in the Western world. The needs of our constituents continue to grow, and the problems of our nation constantly increase. The need for better information to improve Members' vigilance over Government actions and policies is obvious, all the more so when we recall the immense back-up of professional bureaucratic and other expertise that is available to Ministers.
Despite chronic understaffing, our Parliament works effectively and Members of Parliament provide a valuable service to their constituents. but the needs are growing and there is no doubt that we could improve all our activities if we had available to us more adequate secretarial, research and office services. The 18 per cent. is only a pointer in the right direction. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the House will defeat the Government's proposal for a 6 per cent. increase and that it will take the bolder step of supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

Mr. John Stokes: I intervene briefly because, since the last war, I have been concerned in one way or another with salaries and salary administration. I should like to consider the history of this matter.
The need for Members of Parliament to have secretaries is due to the vast increase in correspondence over the past 25 years. There has been also a sharp increase in lobbying by sending hon. Members circulars on all kinds of topics. Many of these letters are typewritten, as are Members' replies. I often think that the typewriter is a curse, as is television. In the days when all communications were


written by hand and had to be copied by hand, as in the time of Lord Palmerston and after, people were careful in writing only what was strictly necessary and avoiding the ceaseless verbiage from which we all suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This applies to the Civil Service as well. Members of Parliament are subjected also to all kinds of questions about welfare problems which add greatly to correspondence and which are more properly the concern of local councillors.
Nevertheless, a mass of correspondence must be dealt with, and a competent secretary is a necessity for hon. Members. The allowance is designed to cover the cost of a research assistant and office expenses. But, on this matter, I shall displease some hon. Members. I wonder whether all these assistants are strictly necessary. They have led to an absurd increase in the number of written questions, which cost the taxpayer a lot of money and which are seldom read in Hansard or elsewhere.
Of course, we Members of Parliament must scrutinise the actions of the Executive, but we have, after all, an excellent Library in the House of Commons to help us with many of our inquiries. The main job of a Member of Parliament is not constantly to grub about in detail but to make a broad judgment of the facts.
I do not believe that, if all research assistants were to he done away with, the work of the House as a whole would suffer. Some of our most brilliant luminaries —some of whom are not here tonight—have no research assistants and write most of their correspondence in longhand, as I do.
I come to the precise point of the debate. In the past, I have frequently criticised Governments of both parties for their dealings in these matters. Of course, I realise that the job of a secretary here is not the glamorous one that the public think. Secretaries work for long hours, doing hard work and often working for very dull chaps; so it is not quite the exciting job that some people think.
I realise also that the salaries paid here are not as high as those paid in the City and in some parts of industry. Nevertheless, people wish to work here as secretaries. If we omitted from our calculations the cost of those research assistants, the new money proposed of roughly £14,000 a year would cover the cost of a competent secretary, plus the cost of office expenses. Therefore, I believe that, on the whole, the Government deserve our support today.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not be long. I have never spoken in one of these debates before. Amused as we may well have been by the Victorian comedy turn that we have just heard, the fact is that this is a disgraceful motion which has been put before us by the Leader of the House.
I have always been told that this is a matter for the House, not a matter for the Government. I have always favoured — many other hon. Members on both sides have—some external judgment, if possible an objective judgment, of those matters, so that they could be implemented and operated automatically. The Top Salaries Review Body pay review, which the Leader of the House invites us to bring into operation yet again, produced exactly that two years ago and was summarily dismissed by the same person. I remember that night well. It is also pretty disgraceful that those matters, which are important, are discussed so late with so little opportunity for hon. Members to take part. I know that I am

privileged, in a sense, in having the chance to take part in the debate tonight. Many other hon. Members never will. That is wrong.
On that night two years ago, I remember that the payroll vote and the well-off vote voted down the less well-off vote. Those who could afford research assistants and secretarial support from private funds voted to deny finance from public funds to those who could not afford it. That is what happened. It had nothing to do with the House. It had nothing to do with any assessment of the needs of hon. Members. It had nothing to do with any constitutional concept — the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) talked about the need for a proper check on the Executive. It had nothing to do with proper salaries.
The House should not accept that approach. The House should reject that approach. I call upon hon. Members to do so.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred in his closing remarks to a spirit of realism. have rarely heard from the Front Bench words that were so unrealistic as those he used tonight. For example. I refer to a place where he may seek a secretary for the future— The Times. I refer him to "La Creme de la Creme", on page 29 of Wednesday's edition. There he will see that secretaries are being offered £15,000 plus. That is the world of realism, not the unrealistic world that he put before us.
If we look, furthermore, at the international comparisons, which have not been alluded to by my right hon. Friend, we see that when the allowance was £8,752 in October 1982, the Canadian House of Commons was allowing over £41,000, the Federal German Republic over £15,000, the French National Assembly over £14,000 and the European Assembly over £16,000. I could go on. The United States Senate was allowing £365,000. If we are to refer to both a secretarial allowance and an office allowance in terms of depreciation of typewriters, national insurance, the 10 per cent. extra for the pension—

Mr. Richard Holt: We are talking not only about the salaries that are paid to these good secretaries, but about their physical working conditions. Those in our Parliament must be compared with those in other Parliaments.

Mr. Gregory: That is a relevant point, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate it soon after the recess.
I conclude by urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the resolution, or at least to abstain on it. It will be in the best interests of the House if he does so.

Mr. Chris Smith: I shall speak briefly because I do not wish to detain the House while more of the payroll vote is summoned in. I commend my amendment. It will enable us to pay decent wages and employ two workers, rather than one, or one and a bit if we can scrape the money together, and it will enable us to provide a decent service to our constituents.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Biffen: The debate would not be entirely traditional unless the Leader of the House had had a chance to say a few last words. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that he did not think that this was my finest hour. I do not believe that any Leader of the House inviting the House to consider such matters is ever likely to find the House in the most calm, detatched and charitable of moods.
Many more weighty decisions will be taken by the House during this and the next week, but the public, reasonably, will be monitoring what we do now. The debate, and our decision on the motion, are about the techniques of interim uprating of the secretarial allowance between the four-yearly reviews. This is a difficult occasion. I believe in what I have argued, that this is not the occasion to try to rewrite the scale of the secretarial allowance. That is why we are having an inquiry, and those who are seeking to rewrite the scale of the allowance are perverting the intentions of the debate. Ultimately, they will be judged by how they handle public spending, which is how they will be judged in this instance.

Amendment proposed to the Question, in paragraph (a), leave out 'remained at £13,211' and insert 'been £19,000.'—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 128.

Division No. 265]
[12.52 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin


Ashby, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Guy
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Donald


Bellingham, Henry
Dormand, Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dover, Den


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dubs, Alfred


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Best, Keith
Eadie, Alex


Blackburn, John
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Anthony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Malcolm
Foster, Derek


Bruinvels, Peter
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Franks, Cecil


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gregory, Conal


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Thomas
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Robert
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clelland, David Gordon
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hayes, J.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Conlan, Bernard
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Howells, Geraint





Hoyle, Douglas
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, John


John, Brynmor
Randall, Stuart


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rathbone, Tim


Kennedy, Charles
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rooker, J. W.


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shersby, Michael


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Livsey, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sims, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Edward
Smith, (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Michael
Spencer, Derek


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKelvey, William
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marek, Dr John
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Waller, Gary


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Merchant, Piers
Wareing, Robert


Michie, William
Wiggin, Jerry


Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Gordon


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Nellist, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


O'Brien, William
Winterton, Nicholas


O'Neill, Martin
Wolfson, Mark


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Allan Rogers.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Galley, Roy


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hirst, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lyell, Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Malone, Gerald
Scott, Nicholas


Marlow, Antony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Terlezki, Stefan


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, David


Norris, Steven
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 131.

Division No. 266]
[1.04 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashby, David
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Crowther, Stan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Dewar, Donald


Bellingham, Henry
Dixon, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dover, Den


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Best, Keith
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm
Flannery, Martin


Bruinvels, Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Forman, Nigel


Caborn, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Franks, Cecil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clarke, Thomas
George, Bruce


Clay, Robert
Gregory, Conal


Clelland, David Gordon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conway, Derek
Hayes, J.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)





Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Patchett, Terry


Holt, Richard
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Penhaligon, David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pike, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Douglas
Prescott, John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rathbone, Tim


John, Brynmor
Raynsford, Nick


Johnston, Sir Russell
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Knox, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rooker, J. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sims, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spencer, Derek


Loyden, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McGuire, Michael
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKelvey, William
Thurnham, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Waller, Gary


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael
Wareing, Robert


Maxton, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Merchant, Piers
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Michie, William
Wilson, Gordon


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wolfson, Mark


Nellist, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Brien, William



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Michael Meadowcroftand


Parry, Robert
Mr. Allan Rogers.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Galley, Roy


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lang, Ian






Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lilley, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Scott, Nicholas


Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Terlezki, Stefan


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Cranley
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Whitney, Raymond


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wood, Timothy


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pattie, Geoffrey



Pollock, Alexander
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the first Resolution of 20th July 1984 (limit on office, secretarial and research allowance) should have effect as if—

(a) the limit for the year ending with 31st March 1986 had been £19,000, and
(b) the relevant percentage for the year ending with 31st March 1987 were 6 per cent.

British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Stuart Holland: We trust that this scheme will work well, and we wish all of those concerned the happiest of retirements.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has just said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I join in the general spirit of harmony.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft International Finance Corporation (1985 General Capital Increase) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

PROTECTION OF WORKERS FROM BENZENE EXPOSURE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4044/86, a proposal for a Council directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to benzene at work; and supports the directive in principle as a step towards harmonised standards of control of a toxic substance and endorses the Government's intention of seeking modifications in negotiation.

SUGAR FROM FRENCH OVERSEAS DEPARTMENTS AND ACP STATES

That this House takes note of the draft proposals by the Commission of the European Communities for a Council Regulation laying down measures for the marketing of raw cane sugar produced in the French Overseas Departments and for the equalisation of the price conditions with preferential sugar, and for a Council Regulation on the conclusion of Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters on the guaranteed prices for cane sugar from certain African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the Republic of India, as described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda dated 24th June 1986 and 14th May 1986; and supports the Government's objective to secure outcomes which provide for reasonable conditions for the sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Insolvency Bill [Lords] and the Company Directors Disqualification Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. — [Mr. Neubert]

PETITION

Irina Ratushinskaya

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to ask leave to present two petitions, the first signed by 56 petitioners from the members of St. Michael's church of the parish of Tingwynlais in my constituency, and the second, signed by 85 petitioners, from the Zion Methodist church, Tonypandy.
The two petitions are almost identically worded and refer to Irina Ratushinskaya, who is the subject of two early-day motions— No. 420, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and No. 611 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
The poetess is confined in a Soviet labour camp for writing poetry. She is in poor health and, in the view of her husband and fellow prisoners, her life is in danger. The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will encourage the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in their representations to the Soviet Government for the purpose of obtaining both the release of Mrs. Ratushinskaya from the labour camp and her urgently needed medical assessment and treatment.
I am sure that the petitions have the support of many right hon. and hon. Members. I add my full support to them.

Mentally Handicapped and Mentally Ill Prisoners

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I wish to raise a matter which I think is of considerable importance and which, as far as I know, has not been debated for some time. It might be of special interest this week as I understand that tomorrow an important Committee report on these matters is to be published. I therefore look forward to the Minister's response.
I recently visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. I know that some of the circumstances of the prison, if not of the visit, are known to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who I am delighted to see in his place. While I was there, I met and spoke to mentally handicapped and mentally ill persons who had been sent to that prison.
I should like to make it clear that the governor, Mr. Gallagher, the medical staff arid all of the personnel at the prison seemed to be doing their utmost to help the persons concerned and I would not wish to reflect on their dedication. I have not recently met anyone, whether the families of the persons concerned or those responsible for running prisons and those who have a general interest in these matters, who takes the view that that sort of person should be in Her Majesty's prisons.
Society punishes law breakers, but we ought not to punish sick people; we ought to try to heal them. I know that the House will note the concern of such organisations as the National Prisoners' movement, PROP, the Prison Officers Association and the Scottish Prison Officers Association. I was interested to read in The Scotsman this morning the words of Mr. John Renton, the spokesman for the Scottish Prison Officers Association, who said that Scotland's prisons are not geared up to treating disturbed or mentally handicapped prisoners, although they do their best with the resources available. He continued:
Prisons do what they can to provide treatment, but they don't have the medical and nursing staff geared to the problem.
I most certainly agree with that. This problem has United Kingdom implications and its dimensions go well beyond Scotland. It is not a new problem. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has raised these matters on many occasions.
The report of 1984 said:
In previous reports we have expressed our concern about the detention of mentally disordered offenders in prison, when what they need is treatment in an appropriate psychiatric institution. Prison medical officers have frequently told us that managing mentally ill offenders was the hardest part of their duties. Many governors expressed similar views. There may be room for argument over the number of those offenders who could be better cared for in a mental hospital, but there can be no doubt that many are inappropriately confined to prison.
One of the difficulties we have in trying to establish the extent of the problems is to find out precisely how many people who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill are spending their time in prison. I do not necessarily criticise the present Government on this point, but I do believe that Governments should be much more forthcoming than they are in trying to make assessments and endeavouring to provide information to the House and the country as


to how many people are in prisons when they are mentally handicapped or mentally ill and manifestly should be elsewhere in their own interest and in the interest of society.
I have seen great variations in the estimates. On 25 October 1985 the New Statesman suggested that about 23,000 of the prison population had some kind of mental problem. It said that from 14 per cent. to 45 per cent. of the prison population are said to be in those categories.
I was astonished to discover that the Scottish Home and Health Department says that no statistics of any sort on mentally handicapped or mentally ill prisoners are collected in Scotland. I hope that in due course that can be put right. In this respect, I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay).
The BBC, in its "Newsnight" programme — I congratulate it most warmly—on 7 July presented what I thought was an excellent analysis of some of the problems in this area. The programme dealt mainly with the tragic case, which is probably well known to the Minister, of Russell Ramsdon who, before the completion of the video which was trying to cover and assess his problems, unfortunately committed suicide. Clearly, Russell Ramsdon should not have found himself in prison. I agree entirely with the BBC in its assertion.
In drawing the Minister's attention to the programme — I thank the BBC for giving me the transcript — I would like to say that there are at least three points about which I think the Minister may be interested in what "Newsnight" had to say, if only because it is relevant to the wider problems which I invite the House to consider. Incidentally, I had asked for an Adjournment debate for many weeks before the programme took place.
The "Newsnight" programme was introduced by Donald MacCormack, who said:
This autumn an emergency working party, set up by the Home Office, will report on a mounting crisis in Britain's jails, where now more than fifteen hundred mentally ill offenders are serving sentences, some psychiatrists put this figure as high as fifteen thousand, a third of Britain's prison population. Twelve years ago the Butler Committee recommended that two thousand places in special hospitals called Regional Secure Units should be provided for these offenders, but today there are barely more than four hundred of them.
Elsewhere in the programme there were comments which I think are worthy of the Minister's attention. Mr. Julian O'Halloran said:
Since the 1950s the number of beds has halved in psychiatric hospitals, because of a policy of getting patients to live back in the community. But where have these mentally ill people really gone?
Over the same period, the prison population has been rising remorselessly, it's now about double what it was thirty years ago. And suspicious doctors have noted an almost exact correlation between the two figures.
Immediately that was said, Dr. Malcolm Weller said:
It's almost a one to one relationship, that is for every patient who is discharged from hospital, there is a corresponding increase in the prison population.
During the programme my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) — I think that the House recognises the excellent work which he has done in these matters—made an intervention which I consider to be worthy of repetition. He said:
Successive governments have given something like £80 million to the 14 Regional Health Authorities, tied specifically to the provision of units providing services for mentally

disabled patients. Today, over 12 years later, we have got 10 units with less than 400 beds, another two units to come into being in the next two years and a further two Regional Health Authorities, both of whom, Oxford and the South West Thames Regional Health Authority, have received millions of pounds of public money to provide the facility for some of the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and deprived of our fellow citizens, and neither of them have actually got a single brick built or established to build those units.
It seems clear that somewhere along the way we are failing in the objectives that I think the House would want to set in seeking a solution to these problems.
When there was a debate in another place on these matters it was established clearly that there are departmental grey areas. I ask the Minister to address himself to these matters and to tell the House—if not tonight, I hope that he will do so in the not-too-distant future—the number of offenders that come within these categories and how many are occupying places in prison.
The Butler report on abnormal offenders recommended as far back as 1975 that 2,000 places should be made available at appropriate and special institutions in the regional secure units. All the evidence suggests — this was said recently in another place—that we have no more than 120 places along those lines. If that figure is not accurate, I am sure that the Minister will bring the House up to date. We are nowhere near the objective set by the Butler report in its recommendations.
I pay tribute to organisations such as MIND which have done so much work on these issues. In my opinion, MIND gave excellent evidence to the committee which considered these matters and which is, I understand, to report tomorrow. MIND takes the view—it is one that I share — that it would be a mistake not to grasp the nettle of integrating the prison medical service with the NHS in a meaningful manner. We are a long way from achieving any effective co-ordination of that sort. Without that, or something like it, nothing will really change for the mentally ill who are in prison.
Like MIND, I favour all attempts to divert mentally ill offenders from prison, but I cannot see that anything short of additional resources for the NHS to provide secure places and a new power for the courts to direct regional health authorities to provide treatment for mentally ill offenders will achieve the objective.
There is a need to review the law on mentally ill offenders. In the meantime, I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to try to cope with the problems and to anticipate additional problems which the prison authorities might have to face. There is a clear need within the prison service for more psychiatric facilities. Clearly, attitudes must also change dramatically before we can talk of ourselves as being a caring society in respect of the mentally disadvantaged. Not much has been achieved since the Butler report and even the May report when a chief inspector takes the view, as one did recently, that many mentally ill offenders are at present inappropriately confined to prison, when the director of the prison medical services has expressed his strong concern about these problems, and when the director general of the prison service describes overcrowding in prisons as an affront to any civilised society.
Obviously, prison is depressing enough for any person. To suffer mental illness is also a dreadful experience. But to ask people to endure both prison and mental illness or handicap is something which all hon. Members would deplore.
I invite the Minister to address himself to those problems and to give the House some assurance about resources and new progressive thinking, and, in particular, to tell us what the Government have in mind for providing the regional secure units which society feels is long overdue if we are to deal with those problems compassionately, reasonably, and urgently.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for raising this issue. He has demonstrated through his private Member's Bill, which has now received the Royal Assent and become an Act, a deep regard for the rights and circumstances of disabled people, including those who may be mentally ill or mentally handicapped. His was a carefully prepared and considered speech and I wish to respond to it as thoroughly and helpfully as I can. I hope that the information that I have prepared will meet some of the points he raised. I assure him that I shall go through the debate later and if there are matters which I do not have a chance to deal with tonight, I shall write to him. I have also had the opportunity of talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who came to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he will write to the hon. Gentleman about the purely Scottish points, on which I am not competent to offer him advice.
Inevitably, serious issues arise when one considers whether mentally disordered people should under any circumstances be within the prison system. Even if it is accepted that they should, there will always be anxiety about the type of provision made for them. The hon. Gentleman made all those points in his speech.
We must start from the basic fact that some people who are mentally disordered commit criminal offences, and if they are brought to court, it is a matter for the court to weigh the relevant points at issue. That may include the protection of the public and the state of mind of the offender. The court must judge the most appropriate disposal. The courts will have cognisance of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, which consolidated the law relating to mentally disordered people and made some significant changes.
There are two main issues. The first is the extent to which the operation of the Mental Health Act enables mentally disordered offenders to be directed away from prison. The second is whether mentally disordered people who are in prison, most of whom are not detainable under the Mental Health Act and cannot therefore be transferred to hospital solely on account of their mental state, receive adequate medical attention and support through the prison regime. Let me set out the Department's policies on these issues.
First, it is our policy to transfer out of prison into hospital as many mentally disordered offenders as possible who are detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983, while monitoring the extent to which various sections of the Act may be regarded as effective. Secondly, it is our policy to maintain a close liaison with the DHSS, the special hospitals and the psychiatric services, regarding the provision of sufficient hospital places. Thirdly, it is our policy to provide an appropriate regime for mentally disordered people who have to stay in the prison system.
It might be helpful to the House if I pointed to the most relevant parts of the Mental Health Act 1983. A

substantial element in the prison population comprises defendants, both convicted and unconvicted, who are remanded in custody, often for medical reports. Many of those are mentally disordered. The best hope of making a significant impact on their number is by means of the alternative of remand to hospital under sections 35 and 36 of the Mental Health Act, which were innovations and were brought into force on 1 October 1984. Those sections give courts the power to remand to hospital for a report on the prisoner's mental condition or for treatment. Their use is governed by the requirement that the court should first have medical reports and the offer of a bed from a suitable hospital.
Section 47 of the Mental Health Act empowers the Home Secretary to transfer from prison to hospital any sentenced prisoner who is so mentally disordered that he could be compulsorily detained in a mental hospital if he were in the community. Such transfer can be made only when a hospital bed is available for the prisoner that offers an adequate degree of security and treatment appropriate to his medical condition. Prison sentences for offenders who are mentally disordered at the time of their appearance in court can be avoided altogether if the court so decides, and the offender can be made the subject of a hospital order under section 37 of the Act, provided that the court is satisfied on the evidence of two doctors that the offender is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree that makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment—that is to say, he would be detainable, even if not an offender, in order to be transferred.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister may intend to deal with this point later, but is he aware that often the courts simply do not know where to send an offender because there is not adequate accommodation or facilities that they believe to be in the best interests of the offender? Have not views along those lines been expressed to the Minister?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, and we have been pressing hard and providing resources to ensure that every area has a regional secure unit to relieve the burden. There was some delay earlier in providing those, which was the subject of representations by the Home Secretary. We hope that the framework has now been established so that courts can be properly advised by those who are there to help them make these difficult decisions and to ensure that facilities are available. We can never wholly guarantee that courts will have the facilities that they want; from time to time cases arise that show that courts do not feel that they have those facilities. However, with the network of regional secure units coming into place provision is certainly better than it was, although it falls short of what anyone would consider ideal. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point.
Under section 41 of the Act, a Crown court may also make a restriction order, if it considers it necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. Again, such an order can be made only if a suitable hospital bed is available.
Every effort is made to ensure that any prisoner who is detainably mentally disordered is transferred to hospital for psychiatric treatment, in accordance with the policy of reducing the prison population by the removal of certain categories of offender who ought not to be in prison. In accordance with that policy, the hon. Gentleman will be


pleased to hear that the number of prisoners transferred to hospital has been rising rapidly and the success rate in dealing with recommendations for such transfers is high. On 31 March 1986, the number of sentenced prisoners who were considered to be mentally disordered within the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 stood at 124, the same as at March 1985. That was 23 higher than at September 1985, but significantly lower than the 347 of June 1979.
Before I refer to existing facilities within the prison system, I should like to make two points which, while I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of them, might be overlooked by others. The first is that the prison system is not an island, a kind of self-sufficient microcosm of the general community. There is a substantial degree of functional integration with the NHS and prison medical officers making ready use of NHS facilities, including the advice available from consultant psychiatrists.
Secondly, with a very few exceptional cases, for those people who commit criminal offences and get sent to prison, the system is most accurately seen in context as an interlude—albeit that for some this may be measurable in years—between their more substantive periods in the community. We are therefore debating the care and management of mentally disordered people who, because of the offences they have committed, are in prison transit. There is an important corollary to that view, which I shall touch on in a moment.
What of existing facilities within the prison system? They are highlighted by the regime at Grendon prison. There are also facilities in the hospital annexe at Wormwood Scrubs and at Glen Parva and Feltham youth custody centres. It is open to prison medical officers to refer suitable prisoners to those establishments. As the House will know, the entire activities at Grendon are directed to the treatment and personal development of prisoners with personality or psychopathic disorders. The regime is carefully monitored by a standing committee under the chairmanship of the director of the prison medical service.
A current development at Glen Parva is that two wards in the centre's hospital are being opened shortly to enable 20 youth custody trainees who are intellectually or socially handicapped to be given specialised care and support. These wards will be staffed jointly by discipline and hospital officers, under the supervision of the senior medical officer. The therapeutic unit at Parkhurst C wing, which was closed in 1979 following disturbances in a neighbouring part of the prison, reopened last December. That is further good news.
I should like to refer to the part played by staff who are of course the prime and indispensable facility. The doctor-patient relationship in prison is professionally analogous to that outside, and the medical treatment offered a prisoner is determined in each case by the clinical judgment of the individual doctor concerned. Unlike patients detained under the Mental Health Act, the prisoner is not obliged to accept that treatment, except in very special circumstances. Happily some 30 per cent. of full-time prison medical officers have psychiatric qualifications. They are assisted as necessary, as I have said, by visiting consultant psychiatrists. There are nearly 1,000 hospital officers, some 11 per cent. of whom have nursing qualifications, half of those psychiatric. Additionally, there are about 140 trained nurses. It is

planned to increase that number over the coming years and to raise further the proportion with psychiatric qualifications.
Training provision is under continual review. In 1984, the Department increased from 13 to 24 weeks the length of training for hospital officers, using the whole of the additional time on instruction in nursing mentally disturbed prisoners. A talk by the president of MENCAP featured in a development seminar earlier this year for all principal and senior medical officers.
No reliable information has existed on the number of prisoners who cannot be transferred to hospital under the 1983 Act but who in varying degrees seem mentally disordered. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that. We are tackling this deficiency with a snapshot census taken by prison medical officers on the position as at 4 December 1985, and again on the position during October this year. Preliminary indications are that, of some 24,000 adult males serving six months and over, about 1,430 — or 6 per cent. — require specialised therapeutic facilities by reason of mental disorder or abnormality. Of course, about 230 are regarded as being mentally ill and 860 as having a personality disorder.
In the initial view of prison medical officers, about half of the 1,430 prisoners are regarded as being appropriately managed now. The same census suggests that of some 7,200 young males serving six months and over, about 320 require specialised therapeutic facilities, 17 are regarded as being mentally ill, and 242 are regarded as having a personality disorder. Again, prison doctors judged that about half were being appropriately managed at that time. Those two snapshots are intended for immediate management purposes. They will enable the director of prison medical services the better to assess the adequacy of current provision and to give consideration to the size, type and number of such further facilities as may be indicated, and to what additional resources might be involved.
Arrangements are also in hand for an academic research study to be undertaken by the Institute of Psychiatry. It is envisaged that this study, which is expected to start in the autumn and to take three years to complete, will objectively describe existing arrangements for the management of mentally disordered inmates, evaluate the effectiveness of those arrangements and identify where needs are not currently being met and the means by which they might be met.
I return to the important point of liaison with the Department of Health and Social Security. My noble Friend Lord Glenarthur, who is the Minister responsible for prisons, has in discussion with Lady Trumpington, his counterpart in that Department, jointly set up an interdepartmental working group to look into the problems asociated with mentally disordered offenders in the prison system. That group, which is being chaired by the director of prison medical services, will have in mind the desirability of minimising the numbers of such prisoners in the system and facilitating their management and treatment in the most appropriate circumstances, both while in custody and after. This working group will consider also the preparation for release and inmates' planned acceptance back into the community. I hope that I am putting across to the hon. Gentleman that much progress is being made.
The motivation and experience of many members of the prison service of all disciplines enable a good deal to be


contributed to the compassionate care of the mentally disordered in their charge. I stress again that we make no assertion of satisfaction in respect of current provision and arrangements, but I hope that the positive stance of the Government is clearly signalled by the initiatives which we have taken to get a better measure of the task and to assess

what improved arrangements are desirable, while not losing sight of the general pressures in the penal system and the inevitable constraints on resources.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.